Ferandos v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Judge Pio B. Ferandos filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against Judge Juan Y. Reyes, Leocadio Verdeflor, and Atty. Marcial A. Edillon. This petition stemmed from Civil Case No. R-13779, an action for annulment of judgment with damages filed by Leocadio Verdeflor and Marcial A. Edillon against Judge Ferandos and Antonia Montero Gabor. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated March 25, 1975, dismissed the petition of Judge Ferandos because the case had become moot. This mootness was due to Judge Reyes' dismissal of Civil Case No. R-13779. The Petition: A copy of the March 25, 1975 resolution was served on Atty. Edillon. Despite the resolution being in his favor as a respondent and having become final, Atty. Edillon, on May 20, 1975, mailed a "Manifestation" dated May 17, 1975. In this manifestation, he described the Supreme Court's resolution as "the paradigm of legal unreason or perhaps vacant thinking" and stated it showed "indifference to the factual history of the case." He also used expressions such as "absurd petition," "like the heathen, Judge Juan Y. Reyes took the law unto himself," and "sheer legal ignorance if not downright stupidity." In a prior comment dated May 20, 1974, he had used derogatory language against Judge Ferandos.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Edillon is guilty of direct contempt of court. Whether disciplinary action should be taken against respondent Atty. Edillon for his misbehavior and noncompliance with a lawyer's duty to observe due respect to the courts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Edillon guilty of direct contempt of court and imposed a fine of two hundred pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He was also required to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law or why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. His manifestation was stricken from the record.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of direct contempt: The Court held that respondent Atty. Edillon was guilty of direct contempt. His "Manifestation," despite its outward show of respect, contained derogatory implications and insults towards the Court's resolution. The Court found his characterization of the resolution as "legal unreason" and "vacant thinking," along with the imputation of indifference to factual history, to be false and abusive. The Court emphasized that while respondent Edillon may have been vexed by the actuations of Judges Reyes and Ferandos, this did not justify venting his spleen against the Supreme Court with unfounded, offensive, abusive, and uncalled-for animadversions on a final resolution that did not prejudice him. Such an act constitutes contempt in facie curiae committed with wanton malice, using the manifestation as a vehicle to ridicule the Court's resolution. The Court cited Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and several jurisprudence in support of its finding. On the issue of disciplinary action: The Court noted that it is the duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers" as provided in Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Respondent Edillon exhibited a penchant for using abrasive, vituperative, and intemperate language, which serves no useful purpose and constitutes direct contempt. The Court reiterated the principle that the use of disrespectful language in pleadings is unacceptable. Consequently, the Court required respondent Edillon to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law or why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his misbehavior and noncompliance with his duty to respect the courts. The Court also ordered that his manifestation be stricken from the record as a sham, false, immaterial, and impertinent pleading.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who uses abusive, offensive, and disrespectful language towards the Supreme Court in a pleading, even if the resolution does not prejudice him, is guilty of direct contempt and may face suspension from the practice of law.