Palmario v. Social Security System
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Facunda Palmario questioned her transfer from the Social Security System (SSS) accounting department to the real estate department, claiming it was a demotion and caused her "mental torture." Her request for a one-year leave was denied, and a one-month leave request was granted for only one week. She left her office and did not report back for over a year. When required to explain her absence, she failed to do so. Consequently, she was dismissed as of her last day of actual service. Procedural History: The Civil Service Commissioner modified the SSS dismissal order, considering Palmario as resigned. Both SSS and Palmario moved for reconsideration, which were denied. Palmario then filed a petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 65862), which was dismissed in 1984 for raising factual issues, lacking legal basis, and having no merit. A Petition to Reopen the case was dismissed in 1987 for being a reiteration of the original petition and lacking substantial reasons. A motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was denied with finality. Palmario herself filed a Memorandum, which the Court noted. Her counsel, Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto, filed several motions, including a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, a motion for a brief hearing, a motion for reconsideration of a resolution, a motion for leave to file a brief memorandum, a special and very urgent manifestation, a final plea for the integrity of the Supreme Court, a motion to vacate a resolution, and a motion to resolve according to the record of fact and law. Most of these were denied or merely noted. The Petition: The Supreme Court initiated this administrative action motu proprio against Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto due to his improvident language and conduct in the aforementioned cases filed by Facunda Palmario.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto's language and conduct in his pleadings before the Supreme Court constitute contempt of court and professional misconduct. Whether Atty. Jacinto's actions warrant disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law.
Ruling
Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto is hereby SUSPENDED as a member of the Philippine bar and is prohibited from engaging in the practice of law until otherwise ordered by this Court. This resolution shall be spread in his personal record and is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Jacinto's language and conduct: The Court found Atty. Jacinto's language and conduct to be contemptuous and unacceptable. He used "improvident language and conduct" in his pleadings, which included statements such as alerting the Court on "Looming Danger" and averring that a continued disregard of records and laws would result in a "Paradox of Paradoxes and an Irony of Ironies," where a hypothetical Supreme Court would be "better if inexistent because then it could do no harm." He also stated that the Court's need would be "as logical and as rational as our need for a hole in the head." Furthermore, he hinted at providing the media with news "of the most nauseating kind" involving the Court. The Court emphasized that every lawyer is expected to maintain proper decorum and is never justified in using scurrilous and threatening language. Impoliteness and intimidations are unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar, and while criticism is not forbidden, it must be within the limits of propriety and good taste with deference to the judges. On the issue of disciplinary action: The Court concluded that Atty. Jacinto's actions demonstrated a "supercilious and contemptuous regard" for the Supreme Court, which could not be overlooked or unpunished to avoid similar disparagement of the administration of justice. By his own acts and words, Atty. Jacinto clearly demonstrated that he is unfit to continue as a member of the Philippine bar. The Court cited the case of In re Almacen to support the principle that such conduct warrants exclusion from the bar until the lawyer proves worthy again. Therefore, the Court deemed it necessary to instill in him a new sense of discipline and a duty of respect owed to the courts of justice, especially the Supreme Court. This rehabilitation must occur outside the brotherhood he has dishonored, and he will be allowed to return only after purging himself of his misdeeds.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's use of scurrilous, threatening, and contemptuous language towards the Supreme Court, even while professing respect, constitutes grave misconduct unbecoming of an officer of the court, warranting suspension from the practice of law.