G.R. No. L-45192 – 61 Phil. 724 – Legal Ethics – Respect to the Courts – Use of Temperate Language
In 1935, Atty. Vicente Francisco was the counsel for Felipe Salcedo in a case entitled Felipe Salcedo vs Francisco Hernandez. Salcedo lost in that case and Atty. Francisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
The trial court however ordered Atty. Francisco to explain why he should not be disciplined. It appears that in the Motion filed by Atty. Francisco, he expressed his disagreement with the judgment by stating that the judgment is “absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the right of [Salcedo]” and “a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls in the Municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas” – (so this could be an election case); that the court should rectify itself or else the voters in Tiaong might “resort to the press publicly to denounce… the judicial outrage” and that if uncorrected, the judgment will lead to the “increase [of] the proselytes (new converts) of “sakdalism” and make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice.”
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. He is guilty of contempt. A lawyer owes respect to the courts. A lawyer is duty bound to uphold the court’s dignity and authority and to defend its integrity. The language used by Atty. Francisco is uncalled for and unjustified. In order to appeal to reason and justice, it is highly improper and amiss to make trouble and resort to threats. Even if assuming that the trial court did err in its judgment, Atty. Francisco should still use temperate and respectful language in advancing the cause of his client.
His insinuations that the voters in Tiaong, Tayabas might resort to sakdalism (a seditious movement) is a suggestion to the people there of what they should do should his client not get a favorable judgment. This is a veiled threat to the courts. It promotes distrust to the courts.
It is laudable for Atty. Francisco to defend his client with all fervor and energy but he must do so with respect to the dignity of the courts. The lawyer was fined and reprimanded.
Note: Justice Malcolm dissented; Atty. Francisco is protected by Freedom of Speech.
Read full text.
