Zaldivar v Sandiganbayan rather than the "clear and present danger" rule in

G.R. No. 79690-707 disciplinary and contempt charges."

February 1, 1989
Issue:
Facts: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom of
The case stemmed from the resolution of the Supreme speech/expression.
Court stopping the respondent from investigating graft
cases involving Antique Gov. Enrique Zaldivar. The Court Held:
ruled that since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, There was no violation. The Court did not purport to
respondent’s powers as Tanodbayan have been announce a new doctrine of "visible tendency," it was
superseded by the creation of the Office of the simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the
Ombudsman, he however becomes the Special Revised Rules of Court which penalizes a variety of
Prosecutor of the State, and can only conduct an contumacious conduct including: "any improper conduct
investigation and file cases only when so authorized by tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or
the Ombudsman. A motion for reconsideration was filed degrade the administration of justice."
by the respondent wherein he included statements which Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the
were unrelated in the Issue raised in the Court. This "balancing-of-interest test," the Court held that the
include: (a)That he had been approached twice by a statements made by respondent Gonzalez are of such a
leading member of the court and he was asked to 'go slow nature and were made in such a manner and under such
on Zaldivar and 'not to be too hard on him; (b) That he circumstances, as to transcend the permissible limits of
"was approached and asked to refrain from investigating free speech. What is here at stake is the authority of the
the COA report on illegal disbursements in the Supreme Supreme Court to confront and prevent a "substantive
Court because 'it will embarass the Court;" and (c) that in evil" consisting not only of the obstruction of a free and
several instances, the undersigned respondent was fair hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance of
called over the phone by a leading member of the Court the broader evil of the degradation of the judicial system
and was asked to dismiss the cases against two Members of a country and the destruction of the standards of
of the Court." Statements of the respondent saying that professional conduct required from members of the bar
the SC’s order '"heightens the people's apprehension and officers of the courts, which has some implications to
over the justice system in this country, especially because the society.
the people have been thinking that only the small fly can
get it while big fishes go scot-free” was publicized in
leading newspapers.
Now, the Court Resolved to require respondent to explain
in writing why he should not be punished for contempt of
court for making such public statements reported in the
media. Respondent then sought to get some members of
the Court to inhibit themselves in the resolution of the
Zaldivar case for alleged bias and prejudice against him.
A little later, he in effect asked the whole Court to inhibit
itself from passing upon the Issue involved in proceeding
and to pass on responsibility for this matter to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon the ground that
respondent cannot expect due process from this Court,
that the Court has become incapable of judging him
impartially and fairly. The Court found respondent guilty of
contempt of court and indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law. Now, he assails said conviction, invoking
his freedom of speech. Counsel for respondent urges that
it is error "for this Court to apply the "visible tendency" rule
Artiaga v. Villanueva

FACTS:
This is a disbarment case which arose from four civil
actions involving the same property. Juliano Estolnao,
client of Atty. Artiaga, Jr. and Glicerio Aquino and
Florentina Guanzon, client of respondent Atty. Villanueva.
Atty. Artiaga, Jr. filed for the disbarment of the respondent
for unethical practice in the profession of law in the
following acts: 1)causing his client to perjure himself;
2)lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and
the courts; and 3)abuse of right of recourse to the court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of alleged
unethical practices.

RULING:
Yes, the duty of an attorney to the courts to employ,
for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him,
such means are as consistent with truth and honor cannot
be overemphasized. His high vocation is to correctly
inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case,
and to aid it, is doing justice and arriving at correct
conclusions. The respondent violated his oath of office
when he resorted to deception an examination of the
records also show that respondent did not disclose before
the court of agrarian reform prior law. Suits and decisions
rendered relative to the subject land. Respondent
resorted to forum shopping.
Foronda vs Guerrero the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists
when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a
Facts: party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he
The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged that his institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on
principals, Ramona and Concepcion Alcaraz, filed Civil the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a
Case for specific performance and damages before the favorable decision. An important factor in determining the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case involved a existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the
parcel of land which were sold to the Alcarazes. courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases
Thereafter, while the case was pending, Catalina Balais- to claim substantially the same reliefs.
Mabanag, assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag,
and with the respondent as their lawyer, intervened in the Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
case. In their intervention, Spouses Mabanag questioned client, it should not be at the expense of truth and the
the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won lands in the administration of justice. Under the Code of Professional
Philippines. Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding
Alcarazes. Mabanag, through the assistance of execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.
respondent Guerrero as her counsel appealed the Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the
decision to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision. Court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to
Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, Mabanag and impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice
respondent as counsel appeal the decision to the SC. The and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to
SC affirmed the decision of the court a qou. add, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious
petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final
However, the persistence of Mabang and respondent as and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary
counsel did not end there, since the filed multifarious suits action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for
and motions based on the ground that Spouses willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all
Alcazares, being foreigners have no eligibility to own good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such
lands in the Philippines. The ground which these various actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with
petitions and motions is based is already decided by the truth and honor.
Court with finality when it decided the civil case
concerning the sale of the property. We note that while lawyers owe their entire devotion to
the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their
Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended that his client’s right, they should not forget that they are, first and
action of questioning the eligibility of the Spouses foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort
Alcazares is necessary in the validity of the decision and to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
the determination of the validity of the sale. If the Spouses justice.
Alcazares are ineligible to own lands in the Philippines
then the sale is void. In filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning
the same subject matter, the respondent violated Canon
Issue: 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
Whether or not the act of respondent constitutes forum provides that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider
shopping, thus warrant sanction. it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. He also violated Rule 12.02 and
Held: Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate “to
Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been clearly delay no man for money or malice.”
established that in filing such numerous petitions in behalf
of his client, the respondent thereby engaged in forum Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice of law.
shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of
multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs Cloribel ISSUES:
Whether or not:
FACTS: a) Atty. Vicente L. Santiago; Atty. Jose Beltran Sotto;
The first contempt proceeding arose from third motion for Graciano C. Regala; and Associates; and Atty. Erlito R.
reconsideration signed by Atty. Vicente L. Santiago, on Uy; are guilty of contempt on the filed Third Motion for
his behalf and purportedly for Attys. Erlito R. Uy, Graciano Reconsideration;
Regala and Associates, and Jose B. Sotto, that the b) Atty. Vicente L. Santiago; Atty. Juanito M. Caling, and
petitioners, who, according to the Solicitor General and Mr. Morton F. Meads are guilty of contempt on the filed
based on their submitted and signed memorandum, Fourth Motion for Reconsideration;
alleged that petitioners:
HELD:
To have made false, ridiculous and wild statements in a
desperate attempt to prejudice the courts against a) For Atty. Vicente L. Santiago – YES. Fine of
MacArthur International (such efforts could be accurately P1,000.00.
called “scattershot desperation”);
To have such a proposition is corrupt on its face and it For Atty. Jose Beltran Sotto – YES. Fine of P100.00.
lays bare the immoral and arrogant attitude of the
petitioners, and petitioners … opportunistically change For Atty. Graciano C. Regala and Associates – NO. (Took
their claims and stories not only from case to case but no part)
from pleading to pleading in the same case. Atty Santiago
further alleged that the Supreme Court] has overlooked For Atty. Erlito R. Uy – NO. (Took no part)
the applicable law due to the misrepresentation and
obfuscation of the petitioners’ counsel and b) For Atty. Vicente L. Santiago – YES. Additional fine
And the Supreme Court in the effect: of P1,000.00

“Never has any civilized, democratic tribunal ruled that For Atty. Juanito M. Caling – YES. Fine P200.00.
such a gimmick (referring to the “right to reject any and all
bids”) can be used by vulturous executives to cover up For Mr. Morton F. Meads – YES. Fine of P1,000.00.
and excuse losses to the public, a government agency or
just plain fraud…”. Atty. Santiago also filed a motion to RATIO:
inhibit against Chief Justice Concepcion and Justice a) On the Third Motion for Reconsideration
Castro. The Supreme Court finds language that is not to be
The second contempt proceeding arose when respondent expected of an officer of the courts. Atty. Santiago
MacArthur, through new counsel, Atty. Juanito M. Caling pictures petitioners as “vulturous executives” and speaks
who entered a special appearance for the purpose, of this [Supreme] Court as a “civilized, democratic
lodged a fourth motion for reconsideration without tribunal”, but by innuendo would suggest that it is not. Atty.
express leave of court. Said motion reiterated previous Jose Beltran Sotto has misbehaved, under Section 3 (a),
grounds raised, and included citing the New Rules of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court; and that he too has
Court Section 1 Rule 51 and that alleged injustice may cut committed, under Section 3 (d) of the same rule, improper
off all aid and benefits to the Philippine Government by conduct tending to degrade the administration of justice.
invoking the Hickenlooper Amendment after making it Atty. Regala did not even know that his name was
known to the World Court. Meads, for his part tried to included as co-counsel in this case. Finally, borne out by
reason out why such a distorted quotation came about — the record is the fact that Atty. Uy was not also involved
the portion left out was anyway marked by “XS” which is in the preparation of any of the pleadings subject of the
a common practice among lawyers. Canon 22 of the contempt citation.
Canons of Legal Ethics reminds the lawyer to
characterize his conduct with candor and fairness, and b) On the Fourth Motion for Reconsideration
specifically states that “it is not candid nor fair for the Atty. Santiago is a lawyer of record for respondent
lawyer knowingly to misquote.”. MacArthur in this case. He has not resigned from his
position as such lawyer. He has control of the
proceedings. Whatever steps his client takes should be
within his knowledge and responsibility. Indeed, Canon 16
of the Canons of Legal Ethics should have reminded him
that “[a] lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and
to prevent his clients from doing those things which the
lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with reference
to their conduct towards courts, judicial officers, jurors,
witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such
wrongdoing the lawyer should terminate their relation.”

Atty. Caling lifted Section 1. Rule 51, Rules of Court, out

of context. He has not shown to the satisfaction of this
Court that he should be exempted from the contempt
charge against him. He knows that he is an officer of this
Court. He admits that he has read the fourth motion for
reconsideration before he signed it. While he has been
dragged in only at the last minute, still it was plainly his
duty to have taken care that his name should not be
attached to pleadings contemptuous in character.

As to Mr. Meads, having admitted having prepared the

fourth motion for reconsideration, he cannot beg off from
the contempt charge against him even though he is not a
lawyer.
Re: Alamacen
HELD:
FACTS: Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer
Vicente Raul Almacen’s “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s of the court and as citizen, to criticize in properly
Certificate of Title,” filed on Sept. 26, 1967, in protest respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts
against what he therein asserts is “a great injustice of courts and judges.
committed against his client by Supreme Court”. He
indicts SC, in his own phrase, as a tribual “peopled by As a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is
men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore expected not only to exercise the right, but also to
without reasons their own applicable decisions and consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may
commit culpable violations of the Constitution with abridge this right. Nor is he “professionally answerable
impunity.” His client’s he continues, who was deeply for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which
aggrieved by this Court’s “unjust judgment,” has become would not expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen.
one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.” Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until
further orders.
He ridicules the members of the Court, saying “that justice
as administered by the present members of the Supreme
Court is not only bline, but also deaf and dumb.” He then
vows to argue the cause of his client ”in the people’s
forum,” so that “ people may know of the silent injustices
committed by this court’ and that “whatever mistakes,
wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be
repeated.” He ends his petition with a prayer that:

“………a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to

receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney that at
any time in the future and in the event we regain our faith
and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the
practice of the noblest profession.”

The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case

entitled Yaptichay v. Calero, in which Atty. Almacen was
counsel for the defendant. The trial court rencered
judgment agains his client. On June 15, 1966 atty.
Almacen receive acopy of the decision. Twenty days later
on he moved for its reconsideration but did not notify the
latter of the time and plce of hearing on said motion.
Meanwhile, onJuly 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for
execution of the judgment. For lack of proof of service,
‘the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did
serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for
reconsideration, atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a
second motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered
withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon
verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who earlier, that
is, on Aug. 22, 1966 had already perfected the appeal.
Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of
Appeals.
In re Sotto committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously
erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in
Facts: reversing or modifying its decision.
♦
♦Atty. Vicente Sotto issued a written statement2in Atty. Sotto does not merely criticize or comment on the
connection with the decision of this decision of the Parazo case, which was then and still is
Court in In re Angel Parazo the statement was published pending reconsideration by this Court upon petition of
in the Manila Times and other daily newspapers of the Angel Parazo. He not only intends to intimidate the
locality. The court required Atty. Sotto to show cause why members of this Court with the presentation of a bill in the
he should not be charged with contempt of court. next Congress, of which he is one of the members,
♦ reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the
Atty. Sotto does not deny having published the statement members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing
but he contends that under section 13, Article VIII of the the members of Justices from eleven to seven, so as to
Constitution, which confers upon this Supreme Court the change the members of this Court which decided the
power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, Parazo case, who according to
and procedure, "this Court has no power to impose 2 As author of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No.
correctional penalties upon the citizens, and that the 53.) interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Angel
Supreme Court can only impose fines and imprisonment Parazo, reporter of a local daily, who now has to suffer 30
by virtue of a law, and has to be promulgated by Congress days imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge the source of
with the approval of the Chief Executive." And he also a
alleges in his answer that "in the exercise of the freedom news published in his paper, I regret to say that our High
of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the respondent Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but
made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith that
and with no intention of offending any of the majority of it is once more putting in evidence the incompetency of
the honorable members of this high Tribunal, who, in his narrow mindedness o the majority of its members, In the
opinion, erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has wake of
not attacked, or intended to attack the honesty or integrity so many mindedness of the majority deliberately
of any one.' The other arguments set forth by the committed during these last years, I believe that the only
respondent in his defenses observe no consideration. remedy to put
Issue: WON Atty. Sotto can be punished for contempt of an end to so much evil, is to change the members of the
court? Yes Supreme Court. To his effect, I announce that one of the
Ratio: first
♦ measures, which as its objects the complete
Rules 64 of the rules promulgated by this court does not reorganization of the Supreme Court. As it is now
punish as for contempt of court an act which was not constituted, a constant
punishable as such under the law and the inherent powers peril to liberty and democracy. It need be said loudly, very
of the court to punish for contempt loudly, so that even the deaf may hear: the Supreme
♦ Court
That the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all very of today is a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of
courts of superior statue, is a doctrine or principle Justice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano,
uniformly accepted and applied by the courts of last resort Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists
in the United States, which is applicable in this jurisdiction who were the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary.
since our Constitution and courts of justice are patterned his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in
after those of that country. order to influence the final decision of said case by this
♦ Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration
Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or of justice.
wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of ♦
the court in a pending case made in good faith may be As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty.
tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty bound to uphold
court and contribute to the correction of an error if the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes
fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such
attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration
of justice. An attorney as an officer of the court is under
special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and
communication to the courts, he may be removed from
office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty
of flagrant misconduct.
Decision: Atty. Sotto guilty of contempt. Fine of 1,000 with
subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency. He is also required to show cause why
he should not be disbarred.
People v. Gagui him guilty of direct contempt and sentenced him to pay a
fine under penalty of imprisonment if he fails to do so
On November 8, 1957, when Criminal Case No. 2193 of within a given period.
the Court of First Instance of Pampanga was called for
trial, Atty. Eusebio V. Navarro, counsel of record for one In our opinion, the contempt supposed to have been
of the accused, failed to appear and forthwith the court committed by appellant is not a direct contempt so as to
issued an order, which is quoted verbatim as follows: be summarily punishable under section 1 of Rule 64, for
it is not a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court
By virtue of the order dated October 8, 1957, the
or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. If any
assignment of this case was set for today, November
8, 1957. Present were Fiscal Pedro S. David and contempt occurred he failure of said appellant to appear
counsel, Mr. Ahmed Garcia, for the accused Arsenio
for trial under the circumstances mentioned in the order of
Mangila.
November 8, 1957 complained of, it would be an indirect
Attached to the record is an urgent motion for
contempt, punishable only after written charge and
postponement filed by Mr. Eusebio Navarro, counsel
for the other accused Liberato Gagui, alleging that hearing, under section 3 of the same Rule 64, paragraph
he cannot attend to this case, as he is engaged in a
(b) of which mentions "disobedience of or resistance to a
civil case in the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur.ary lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a
court, or injunction granted by a court or judge." As held
The record clearly shows that when the trial was set
for November 8, 1957, it was done in open court and in the case of Rivera vs. Arellano (83 Phil. 744) -
after consultation with Mr. Navarro. As a matter of
fact, the court ordered the detail of a Tagalog
interpreter. The said interpreter is also present. . . . failure or refusal of an accused or of his attorney to
appear from trial comes closer to the definition of indirect
The reasons given by Mr. Navarro are not
satisfactory. Mr. Navarro is fully aware of the fact that contempt in paragraph (b) of section 3 (Rule 64) than to a
this case has been pending for a considerable length
misbehavior in the presence of or near the court
of time. He should have, therefore, given priority to
this case. contemplated in Section 1.ary

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby

imposes a fine of P100.00 upon Mr. Navarro for In State vs. Winthrop, 148 Wash., 526 P. 793; 59 A.L.R.
delaying this criminal case. The court announces in
1265, it was held that the unexcused absence of an
advance that it will not reconsider this order.
attorney from the court when a case in which he was
Reset the trial on January 7, 1958, at 9:00 o'clock in
attorney of record for one of the parties was called for trial
the morning.
is not a contempt occurring in the presence or view of the
Let a copy of this order be served upon the
court, so as to be summarily punishable, but contempt
Department of Justice for the detail again of the
Tagalog interpreter on the said date. therein, if any occurred, away from, and out of, the
presence of the court, and he is not subject to discipline
In another order issued on November 16, 1957, the above
and punishment, other than by a charge being first made
quoted order was amended by providing in the dispositive
against him substantially as required by statute.'
part thereof that "in the event that Mr. Navarro fails to pay
(Footnote, 12 Am. Jur. Sec. 11, p. 396).
the fine of P100.00 he shall suffer a subsidiary
imprisonment not to exceed five (5) days." Subsequently,
In Finnick vs. Peterson, 6 Phil. 172, this Court said: 'A
on December 2, 1957, the lower court issued still another
witness who fails or refuses to comply with a subpoena
order warning Atty. Navarro "that if he fails to pay the said
duces tecum is guilty of contempt. Such contempt is not
fine on or before December 14, 1957, the court will order
committed in the presence of the court, even though, upon
his arrest and confinement."
appearance of the witness, the court should make a
verbal order commanding him to comply with the terms of
From the three orders above referred to, Atty. Eusebio V.
the subpoena. Such a witness can not be punished
Navarro has interposed the present appeal.
summarily. He is entitled to the hearing provided for under
sections 232-240 of the Code of Procedure in Civil
It would appear that for the absence from court of the
Actions. (See also Francisco vs. Enriquez, G. R. No. L-
appellant Atty. Navarro when Criminal Case No. 2193, in
7058, March 20, 1954.) .
which he was counsel of record for one of the accused,
was called for trial, the lower court summarily adjudged
It clearly appearing that no charge in writing for contempt
has been filed against herein appellant, nor An
opportunity given to him to be heard by himself or counsel,
Are find and so hold that the lower court acted in excess
if not in grave abuse, of its jurisdiction in proceeding
against and declaring said appellant guilty of contempt.
(See. 3, Rule 64; Nava vs. Teodoro, et al., G.R. No. L-
10074, April 30, 1959).

Having arrived at the above conclusion, we deem it

unnecessary to pass upon the other questions raised by
appellant