Encinas v. National Bookstore
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated April 6, 2005, required Atty. Ricardo T. Calimag, counsel for Roberto P. Madrigal-Acopiado and his attorney-in-fact Datu Mohaldin R.B. Sulaiman, to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for submitting a fake judicial decision to the Court. Procedural History: Atty. Calimag filed a compliance entitled "Motion to Show Cause (Re: Compliance to Resolution Dated 6 April 2005)." In his explanation, he claimed he filed the "Motion for Intervention with Leave of Court" and "Petition-In-Intervention" on behalf of his clients to seek the truth and that he was misled by the forged judicial decision submitted to him. He asserted an honest mistake without malice and welcomed the referral of the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation. The Petition: The Court reviewed Atty. Calimag's explanation and found it insufficient and unsatisfactory, leading to the citation for direct contempt.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Ricardo T. Calimag should be cited for contempt of court for submitting a fake judicial decision. Whether Atty. Calimag's explanation of being misled and having an honest mistake is sufficient to absolve him from liability for direct contempt.
Ruling
The Court found Atty. Ricardo T. Calimag guilty of direct contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) within ten (10) days from notice, or to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days in case of failure to pay the fine.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of citing Atty. Ricardo T. Calimag for contempt of court: The Court held that Atty. Calimag committed direct contempt of court. Direct contempt, or contempt in facie curiae, is defined as misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, and can be punished summarily without a hearing. It involves conduct directed against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or the doing of a forbidden act. The act of filing a motion and petition based on a spurious judicial decision constitutes such misbehavior. On the sufficiency of Atty. Calimag's explanation: The Court found Atty. Calimag's explanation of being misled and having an honest mistake to be insufficient and unsatisfactory. As a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, he is presumed to know better and is required to thoroughly prepare himself on the law and facts of his case and the evidence he will adduce. The minimum he should have done was to verify the documents with the appropriate authorities, rather than relying solely on his clients' assertions. His actuations were considered insulting to the Court, as it involved asserting a claim based on an obvious and incompetent forgery. Furthermore, his actions may have violated his lawyer's oath to observe and maintain respect due to the courts, to do no falsehood, and not to mislead the court by any artifice.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who files a motion and petition based on a forged judicial decision, despite being presumed to know better as an officer of the court, commits direct contempt of court. The explanation of good faith or honest mistake is insufficient to absolve the lawyer from liability.