Gabriel v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Regino Gabriel and Jaime Tapel were convicted of theft by the Manila Court of First Instance. This conviction was subsequently affirmed in its entirety by the Court of Appeals. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners, Gabriel and Tapel, initially filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision on March 6, 1976, through Atty. Rodolfo D. Mapile. This petition was denied for lack of merit, and final judgment was entered on May 10, 1976. Subsequently, a second petition for the same purpose was filed on May 31, 1976, by Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza. This second petition was also denied for lack of merit by a resolution dated June 11, 1976. 3. The Petition: Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza filed a second petition for review, arguing it was under Rule 45, distinct from the first petition which he contended was a special civil action under Rule 65. The Court found this argument unsatisfactory, noting that both petitions sought to set aside the same Court of Appeals decision and constituted an abuse of the Court's processes. The Court further noted that the second petition was filed without leave after the first had been denied with finality, and that the decision sought to be reviewed had long become final and executory. The Court found Atty. Orteza guilty of contempt for filing multiple petitions and ordered him to pay a fine.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a second petition to review the same Court of Appeals decision, labeled as a Rule 45 petition after a prior Rule 65 petition had been denied with finality, constitutes contempt of court and warrants disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adjudged respondent Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza guilty of contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of P500.00 within ten (10) days from notice, with a warning of imprisonment for failure to pay. The Court also ordered the purported motion for reconsideration of the denial of the second petition and the second petition itself to be expunged from the records as a sham motion, as the decision sought to be reviewed had long become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the filing of multiple or repetitious petitions constitutes a clear abuse of the Court's processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct, and degrade the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that counsel may not 'split' an appeal by filing one petition to set aside a motion for reconsideration or new trial and another to set aside the decision itself. Regardless of the label used—whether a special civil action under Rule 65 or a petition for review under Rule 45—successive petitions for the same purpose trifle with the Court's authority. Applying the precedents in Cabagui vs. People and Fojas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that such conduct is punishable as contempt under Rule 71, Sec. 3(c) and (d). Furthermore, a lawyer who files repetitious petitions, thereby delaying the execution of a final judgment, violates Rule 138, Sec. 20 and subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence or willful violation of duties to act with fidelity to the court. The Court found Atty. Orteza's explanation manifestly unsatisfactory, noting that zeal for a client's cause does not justify the obstruction of justice through sham motions.
Main Doctrine
Filing multiple petitions for the same purpose, even if styled differently, constitutes abuse of court processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct, and degrade the administration of justice, and subjects the erring counsel to contempt and disciplinary action.