In re Tipon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Postmaster General transmitted papers to the Chief Justice suggesting that Atty. Emmanuel S. Tipon might have violated his lawyer's oath by importing the magazine Playboy, which was considered non-mailable matter. Procedural History: The Supreme Court initially deferred action on the complaint pending the decision in Civil Case No. 3898-111, a mandamus action filed by Atty. Tipon against the Postmaster General and his assistant. This case was dismissed by the Court of First Instance for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, a decision not determinative of the disciplinary matter. The Petition: The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Tipon violated postal laws and his lawyer's oath. The resolution considered the indorsement of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, who exercised supervision over the Bureau of Posts.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Emmanuel S. Tipon violated the lawyer's oath for importing the magazine Playboy. Whether the imported magazine is considered non-mailable matter.
Ruling
The case is considered closed for having become moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The case was considered closed for having become moot and academic. This determination was based on the indorsement of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, Hon. Antonio V. Raquiza. The Secretary, after scrutinizing Atty. Tipon's background, concluded that there was no evidence to show that Atty. Tipon had violated or intended to violate postal laws, the lawyer's oath, or the Canons of Legal Ethics. The Secretary's opinion was that Playboy magazine could not be characterized as obscene and could be carried in Philippine mails. Consequently, the Postmaster General's complaint was deemed withdrawn, rendering the disciplinary proceedings unnecessary. On Issue 2: The Secretary of Public Works and Communications rendered the opinion that Playboy magazine could not be characterized as obscene and, therefore, could be carried and deposited in Philippine mails. This administrative determination, made by the head of the department exercising direct control over the Bureau of Posts, effectively resolved the question of whether the magazine constituted non-mailable matter in this context. The Secretary's finding that Atty. Tipon had no intent to violate postal laws further supported the conclusion that the matter was not one requiring disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court considered the case closed for having become moot and academic, as the Secretary of Public Works and Communications had already rendered an opinion that the imported magazine was not obscene and could be carried in Philippine mails. This opinion effectively resolved the issue raised by the Postmaster General's complaint against Atty. Tipon, rendering further judicial action unnecessary.