-9. criticisms against court, judges, and justices

CRITICISMS AGAINST COURT,

JUDGES, AND JUSTICES

Winnie Claire Jamoner

Sherine Rivad

CRITICISMS AGAINST COURT, JUDGES, AND JUSTICES

• CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

• Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

• Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

• Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

• Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

• Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall not criticize the personal or official conduct of a judge in an insulting and intemperate language

• Rule 11.06 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.


Lawyer’s first duty is to the CourtsTripartite Obligation:

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.



Rule 138, Sec. 20(b) of the Revised Rules of Court:It is the duty of an attorney to observe and maintain the respect

due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.



Lawyers must be respectful not only in their actions but also in their use of language whether in oral arguments or pleadings

Rule 71, Sec. 3(a) of the Revised Rules of Court: Disrespectful acts and language are

contemptuous.


ANTONIO T. GUERRERO and GEORGE D. CARLOS vs. HON. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR (G.R. No. 82238-42)

Facts: Herein petitioners filed before RTC an action for damages against respondent judge for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in a criminal case filed by them. On the following day, respondent judge issued an Order of Direct Contempt of Court against herein petitioners, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct contempt for degrading the respect and dignity of the court through the use of derogatory and contemptuous language before the court.


ANTONIO T. GUERRERO and GEORGE D. CARLOS vs. HON. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR (G.R. No. 82238-42)

Held:The power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly, so much so that judges should always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are impersonal. It is intended as a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise. x x x Be that as it may, lawyers, on the other hand, should bear in mind their basic duty “to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and xxx to insist on similar conduct by others.



The highest sign of respect to the Courts is the Lawyer’s obedience to Court orders and

processes.


JUDGE LUIS N. DE LEON vs. JOSE Y. TORRES(Adm. Case No. 180)Facts: Atty. Jose Torres sent a telegram to complainant Judge where he threatened that if the judge won’t lift his order of arrest, he shall file criminal, civil and administrative charges against him. Judge De Leon then issued an order requiring Atty. Torres to show cause why he should not be disciplined but Torres did not appear. Instead, he evaded arrest and went to Manila. Judge De Leon then decreed an order suspending Torres from the practice of law until otherwise ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding this order, Torres still practiced law.


JUDGE LUIS N. DE LEON vs. JOSE Y. TORRES(Adm. Case No. 180)Held: Court’s orders, however erroneous they may be, must be respected, especially by the bar or the lawyers who are themselves officers of the courts. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. This is absolutely essential if our Government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch of the Government to which they belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial system.



“Criticisms of Courts must not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.”


ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ (G.R. Nos. 79690-707)

Facts: Petitioner, having charged for violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan, filed a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of Gonzales, the then Tanodbayan, to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. This was granted by the Supreme Court. Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal information against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme Court.


Held:Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests.


Held:It is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bonafide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.


Ratio: To maintain the dignity and respectability of the legal profession

Proper Attires:

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.


It is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client but to the court and the public as well to be punctual in attendance and to be concise and direct in the trial and disposition of causes. (Canon 21, Canon of Professional Ethics)

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.


Misbehavior in Court is direct contemptMEMORIA G. ENCINAS and ADOLFO A. BALBOA vs. NATIONAL

BOOKSTORE, INC. (G.R. No. 162704)Facts:In a resolution, the Court 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 of court for his participation in the submission of a fake judicial decision to this Court.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before

the Courts.


MEMORIA G. ENCINAS and ADOLFO A. BALBOA vs. NATIONAL BOOKSTORE, INC. (G.R. No. 162704)

Held:Direct contempt, or contempt in facie curiae, is misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge so as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, and can be punished summarily without hearing. It is conduct directed against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act.We cannot accept counsel’s declarations of good faith and honest mistake since, as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, he is presumed to know better.



Lawyer’s language should be dignified.SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD, ET AL. vs. HON.

GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL ETC., ET AL. (G.R. No. L-27072)Facts:Herein Atty. Vicente Santiago was cited with contempt on that ground that his language on a motion for reconsideration he filed is not to be expected of an officer of the courts. He pictures respondent judge as "vulturous executives". He speaks of this Court as a "civilized, democratic tribunal", but by innuendo would suggest that it is not.


Held:A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language shows disrespect to the court, disgraces the bar and invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power..



The language of a lawyer, both oral and written, must be respectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession and with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren

in the profession. The use of abusive language by counsel against the opposing counsel constitutes at the same time a disrespect to the dignity of the court justice. Moreover, the use of impassioned language in pleadings, more often than not, creates more heat

than light. (Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 770)


Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no

materiality to the case.

Lawyer must not attribute to a Judge

motives not supported by the record or which are immaterial to the case, else, direct contempt


Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no

materiality to the case.

Lawyer can demand that the misbehavior of a

Judge be placed on record: Act not contemptuous

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://restrainingorderabuse.com/2013/10/24/what-to-do-if-youve-been-abused-by-a-judge/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=L7EsVJGhEdGfugSm7oG4CA&ved=0CBsQ9QEwBDgU&sig2=_czEBePwaDsF-NUMAigvrA&usg=AFQjCNEOKuE_7waB-jxrZO1ENQwYd7i-OQ



IN RE: AGUAS (1 PHIL 1)Facts:

During the progress of a trial, the court had occasion to caution Angel Alberto, a witness in the case, not to look at the attorney for the defendant but to fix his attention on the judge who was at the time examining him. The witness did not heed to this warning, and the judge thereupon arose from his seat and approaching the witness, seized him by the shoulders, and using the expression, "Lingon ang mucha!" ("Look at me"). This brought the defendant's attorney to his feet, who, protesting against the action of the judge as coercive of the witness, demanded that a record be made of the occurrence and that the further hearing of the case be postponed.



IN RE: AGUAS (1 PHIL 1)Held:

The act of the lawyer is not contemptuous when he demanded that the misbehavior of judge be placed on record. The action of the judge in seizing the witness, Angel Alberto, by the shoulder and turning him about was unwarranted and an interference with that freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled while giving testimony in a court of justice.



IN RE: AGUAS (1 PHIL 1)Held:

Against such conduct the appellant had the right to protest and to demand that the incident be made of a matter of record. That he did so was not contempt, providing protest and demand were respectfully made with due regard for the dignity of the court. xxx.



While lawyers are prohibited to attribute motives to a judge not

supported by the record, lawyers must however, be courageous enough to

expose arbitrariness and injustices of courts and judges.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://nigeriatell.com/news/gejs-taxi-driver-steward-and-304-others-receive-national-honors-award-see-full-list&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=pcAsVIq1JdOyuATmyIGADA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwEDi0AQ&sig2=9IIFPIaCDG_oj56gOtb_ZQ&usg=AFQjCNHJJuv9amG3cyzwc9TT0xo7C0btjg


Criticism of court is not per se contemptuous.Well – recognized is the right of a lawyer, both

as an officer of court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through

legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall not criticize the personal or official conduct of a judge in an insulting and

intemperate language.


• Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall not criticize the personal or official conduct of a judge in an insulting and intemperate language.

Criticisms of court is not per se contemptuous.

Concept of Constructive and Destructive Criticisms:

If the purpose of the criticism is to timely correct/rectify the mistake, error, or irregularity that true justice may be achieved, that is constructive criticism.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://www.throughyourbody.com/criticism-take-the-sting-out/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=97IsVMDOA9CjuQTqloHQDQ&ved=0CCkQ9QEwCzgo&sig2=HGXVgPEbZ_WACnQ1AFPOTg&usg=AFQjCNGlJpLwQ72G4WfosE6YD3LFy1wtug



Criticisms of court is not per se contemptuous.

Concept of Constructive and Destructive Criticisms:If It is was arrogantly or haughtily presented with abusive, scurrilous and offensive language coupled with the malicious intention to mock, ridicule, demean and offend the sensibilities of the court or the sitting judge, it is unquestionably contemptuous. This is destructive criticism.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://www.throughyourbody.com/criticism-take-the-sting-out/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=97IsVMDOA9CjuQTqloHQDQ&ved=0CCkQ9QEwCzgo&sig2=HGXVgPEbZ_WACnQ1AFPOTg&usg=AFQjCNGlJpLwQ72G4WfosE6YD3LFy1wtug



As to whether criticism is contemptuous or not will depend not only upon the manner how it

was presented but also on the kind or tone of the language used as well as the apparent

intention of the critic.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://cellularscale.blogspot.com/2014/02/when-being-mean-is-actually-being-nice.html&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=f7MsVIK4EcrJuATI-YHoDg&ved=0CDUQ9QEwETgU&sig2=rZbcGktFyC7M-8zcKG0ixA&usg=AFQjCNFocQnQB2e_dF1kZcrRFFtra9CVNw



IN RE: ALMACEN (31 SCRA 581)Facts: • Atty. Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration for a lost

case in the lower court. For failure to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion, his motion was denied.

• He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal.• Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the

Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.



IN RE: ALMACEN (31 SCRA 581)Facts: • Atty. Almacen called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. • He then filed before the Supreme Court a “Petition to Surrender his

Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” since the members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.

• He alleged that his client became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.”

• He also stated “that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.”

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/bad-criticisms-of-economics-a-response-to-chris-auld/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=cbYsVI3_FsSVuASsjYLwDw&ved=0CDkQ9QEwEw&sig2=wjw3DQOWw2Q7kG1K5xRJ-A&usg=AFQjCNHU9bxaPC_joRwjapIomTc3IeN7-A



IN RE: ALMACEN (31 SCRA 581)Held: The High Court regarded said criticisms as

uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.



IN RE: ALMACEN (31 SCRA 581)Held: His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the

courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.



The cardinal condition of all criticism is that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the

walls of decency and propriety.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://work.com/blog/2014/02/art-giving-criticism/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=ELIsVLDbHc20uASBi4Eg&ved=0CCMQ9QEwCA&sig2=mEumXxOGLe-HpcMM7Vcijw&usg=AFQjCNH3yV_EyNgxCT6jMbgwwI3NwHbWnQ


Complaints against Judges, to be coursed to proper authorities only. –

Rule 11.6 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

The complaint must be filed with the proper authorities only, that is, with the Supreme Court (through the Office of the Court Administrator), if the case is administrative in nature, or with the Office of the Ombudsman if the complaint is criminal and not purely administrative in nature.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=TbQsVOO0NMW2uAT0qoDYDA&ved=0CBsQ9QEwBA&sig2=AyPlldq0ezJFoOsJaueIpg&usg=AFQjCNFJIkxf-SiO7_eA3ryWMwCbv_I8Cw



Grievances against Justices of the Supreme Court – through the House of Representatives and Senate

If the complaints are based on impeachable offenses, the complaints must be coursed through the House of Representatives and the Senate in accordance with the rules on impeachment. (Art XI, Sections 2-8, 1987 Constitution)



Consequently, complaints should not be coursed to the media, to the Military

authorities, the president, governors, mayors or other officers or institutions which are not the proper forums to investigate the judges

and magistrates.


• A lawyer's right to free expression may have been more limited than that of a layman. A lawyer, acting in a professional capacity, may have fewer rights of free speech than would a private citizen. A layman may, perhaps, pursue his theories of free speech or political activities until he runs afoul of the penalties of libel or slander, or into some infraction of the statutory law. A member of the bar can, and will, be stopped at the point where he infringes the Canons of Ethics, and if he wishes to remain a member of the bar, he will conduct himself in accordance therewith. (Zaldivar v. Gonzales, GR No. 80578, Oct. 7,1988)

-9. criticisms against court, judges, and justices

Documents

court hearings

revised rules of court

judicial officers

similar conduct

respondent judge

judge adriano

courts of justice

intemperate language