I-E

CONSTI 1
IN RE: Wenceslao Laureta

PONENTE:
SUMMARY:

DATE:
A LAWYER AND A CLIENT
THREATENS THE SUPREME
COURT WITH ACTION
FROM ANOTHER FORUM.

DOCTRINE:

March 12, 1987

SEPARATION OF POWERS.

(*a table with the chronological order of events is provided below the digest)

FACTS:

1. Three cases elevated to the supreme court in relation to the claim of respondent
Ilustre having a claim on the properties of Digna Maravila.
2. Three further Minute-resolutions1 were made by the Supreme court applying res
judicata2
Incriminating acts of Illustre (with suspicion of Atty. Lauretas involvement)
3. Respondent Illustre then writes letters the members of the 1 st division of the SC the
letter:
a. Requires them to disclose their participation in the (3) minute-resolutions
b. Threatens that they will be exposed in the proper-other forum
4. Filed a complaint in the Tanodbayan (ombudsman). Then published it in the dailies
5. Ombudsman DISMISSES the complaint by Ilustre.
6. Court thus in a resolution asks ILUSTRE AND ATTY. LAURETA to explain
themselves on the following questions:
a. Why Ilustre should not be held in contempt?
b. Why there should be no disciplinary action against Atty. Laureta as an
officer of the court?
7. Thus this resolution.

ISSUES:

RATIO:

1. WON the courts first division acted in bad faith (NO)

2. WON the separation of powers was violated (YES)
3. WON disciplinary action must be taken against Illustre and Atty. Laureta
(YES FOR BOTH)

WON BAD FAITH (NO)

1. RESPONDENTS CLAIM: Court acted in bad faith and was convinced by J. Yap
because the counsel for their opponent was his partner.
2. CASE RESOLVED NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE PAST.

1 Minute-resolution: Resolution that dismisses a petition when, in the view of

the court, there is no reversible error.
2 Res Judicata: Means has already been judicially decided. Where a final
judgement has been rendered on the merits of an action no court may hear an
appeal

a. Res judicata
b. The Escolin Decision (denying the intervention of Illustre because she had
no legal right over the inheritance) and Javellana (reversing the Busran
decision) decision are final.
c. Javellana resolved in favour of the rightful owners (meaning not
illustre)that:
i. The default is not final thus reversed
ii. Husband of Digno Maravilla is worthy
3. JUDGES GAVE IT DUE CONSIDERATION
a. It happens in court that a minute-resolutions are made. The respondent is
not the only one.
b. Was included in agenda as soon as feasible
4. YAP WAS NOT AWARE THAT ATTY. ORDONEZ WAS APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF THE OPPONENTS OF ILLUSTRE AND HE ALSO INHIBITED
a.
On the May 14 resolution: Yap just came back from an official mission and
was not aware
b. On the July 9 resolution: Yap inhibited
c. On the Sept 3 resolution: Yap inhibited again
d. *Only reason why Ordonez was still recognized and furnished a copy was
because his name was on the role.
5. Court is final
a. Highest judicial body and must be respected

____________________________________________________________________
WON SEPARATION OF POWERS VIOLATED
1. RESPONDENTS CLAIM: Ombudsman is right forum
2. CANNOT SUBJECT COURT TO EXECUTIVE
a. Filing the complaint to the ombudsman shows that the respondents were
forcing the supreme court to be subjected to the executive
b. This is a violation of the separation of powers
c. Separation of powers must be upheld and independence respected
because it is the means of enforcing the supremacy of the constitution
3. MUTUAL RESPECT FOR SEPARTION OF POWER
a. In the same way that the court respects enrolled bills the executive is
expected to respect the court
b. Separation of powers calls for the executive, legislative, and judicial
departments being left alone to discharge their duties as they see fit.. (Tan
V. Macapagal)

____________________________________________________________________
WON DISCIPLINARY ACTION MUST BE TAKEN (YES)
1. Illustre transcended permissible bounds of fair comment and criticism to the
detriment of the orderly administration of justice even if they were just letters.
2. Atty. Laurete committed acts unbecoming of the court by threatening the court,
disrespecting the justices, lying about his undeniable participation, and
authorizing the action of his client.

DISPOSTIO
N

SC FINES ILLUSTRE FOR CONTEMPT AND SUSPENDS LAURETA INDEFINITELY.

----------------------------------------------------------NOTES BELOW
--------------------------------------------------------------

*Chronological order of events:

DATE:
1964
Mar 2, 1971

EVENT:
Fernandez V Maravilla
SC case (GR No. L-23225)

*No date cited in case but chronologically placed*

-Illustre motions to intervene

-first case of illustre with SC
-court probated Digno Maravillas will and gives
husband the inheritance
Escolin Decision

Nov 9, 1977
Feb 29, 1979

-Held that Illustre failed to show right to property or

interest. This meant Illustre has no claim over Digna
Maravillas properties
SC affirms Escolin decision, second case of Illustre
with SC
Macandong decision

Jan 14, 1983

-Illustre filed a case to partition Dina Maravillas estate

and for damages against the heirs of Digna Maravillas
husband
-Court orders default and all properties mentioned in
the case to go back to trunk of origin
-damages be paid to Illustre
-Special civil action for certiorari filed by rightful heirs
-SC refers back to CA
Busaran Decision

Jan 20 1984

-Dismissed petition of Rightful Heirs

-In a way affirming Macandong Decision
Javellana Decision

Oct 22, 1984

-Reversing Busaran Decision

Illustre petitions for review

Jan 21, 1982

May 14, 1986

July 9, 1986
Sept. 3, 1986
Oct 22, 1986
Oct 28, 1986
Nov 3 1986
Dec 16 and Dec 26 1986
Jan 29 1987
May 12, 1987

-3rd case and was denied

3 minute-resolutions

Letters of threat by Illustre which was evaluated

En Bacn Decision
More letters to other justices
Complaint filed to Ombudsman and then was denied
SC asks why respondents should not be held in
contempt and given disciplinary action
SC holding of contempt and suspension to
respondents.