Tiongco v.

Aguilar
240 SCRA 589 (1995)
Facts:
After
After respondent judge ruled against petitioners
Atty. Tiongco and his wifes case for recovery of
possession and damages, petitioner was charged
for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He characterized the decision of
respondent Judge as having been crafted in
order to fool the winning party; as a
hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs favour; one
with perfidious character; and one which "you
could have sworn it was the Devil who dictated
it".
Tiongco described respondent Judge as a liar,
perjurer or blasphemer. He also called the
respondent judge a "robber," "rotten
manipulator," "abettor" of graft and corruption,
and "cross-eyed."
Issue:
Is Tiongcos act of criticizing the Judges
judgment a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes. Tiongcos criticism of the Judges
judgment violated Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as the
lawyers oath and Rules of court.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that a lawyer shall observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts and
to judicial matters, and should insist on similar
conduct by others
The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely
entwined with his vow in the lawyers oath to
conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity
to the courts, and his duty under Section 20(b)
of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
and judicial officers.
It does not, however, follow that just because a
lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot
criticize the courts. That is his right as a citizen,
and it is even his duty as an officer of the court
to avail of such right. Nevertheless, such a right

is not without limits. Such freedom of speech and

of expression in the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution must be exercised responsibly. As
one who is aware of the responsibilities of being
in the legal profession, he exceeded the bounds
of decency in putting forth his criticism when he
falsely and maliciously insinuated against the
Court, particularly the Members of the First
Division, and the obvious scurrilous
characterizations of the respondent judge.
Because of his anger for the unfavorable court
decision, he used unnecessary, offensive and
abrasive language is totally uncalled for and
jeopardizes the high esteem in courts while
undermining the confidence of the people in the
integrity of the members of the Court.
Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000
plus warning.
>>>>>>
Sanggalang vs IAC
177 SCRA 87
Facts: After the court ruled against his clients in
the case, Att. Sangco filed a motion for
reconsideration which became grounds for
charges for contempt against the latter due to
his disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled for
remarks and for suggesting that the Court might
have been guilty of graft and corruption. In the
same motion, he questioned the Court's
competence and integrity and raised its manifest
partiality towards the opposing party.
Issue:
Are the actuations of Atty. Sancgo proper
grounds for contempt?
Ruling:
Yes, the acts of Atty. Sangco are punishable
under Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of Court
treating Direct contempt.
Using intemperate and accusatory language
against the court by a lawyer, who is likewise an
officer of the court, should not go unpunished.
His suggestions that the Court might be guilty of
graft and corruption is not only unbecoming , but
comes as an open assault to the Courts honor
and integrity, who upon rendering its judgment
only yielded to records alone and not to outside
influences. Being a former judge Atty Sangco

could have demonstrated due empathy to the

courts in rendering judgments.
Apart from such, his act also constitutes
malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
states that A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS.
As well as of Rule 11.03 and Rule 11.04 dictating
that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts, and not to attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
Atty Sangco is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for three (3) months and ORDERED to pay a
fine of P 500.00.

Despite that, it believes that like any other right,

the right of a lawyer to comment on or criticize
the decision of a judge or his actuation is not
unlimited. A publication in or outside of court
tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or
influence the courts in administering justice,
destroy public confidence in them or bring them
in any way into disrepute, transcends the limits
of fair comment. Such publication or intemperate
and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the
lawyers duty to respect the courts, and are
violative of Canon 11, Rule 11.04 and 11.05 of
the code of professional responsibility.
Thus records of the said reports were attached to
the personal record of Atty Gomez, though
without further action.
>>>
Maceda vs. Vasquez (G.R. No. 102781)

Facts:
In 1921, Atty. Feliciano Gomez lost an election
protest case for the governorship of Laguna filed
by Juan Cailles which reached the Supreme
Court. Thereafter, at a public meeting at a fiesta
celebration Gomez remarked that the Supreme
Court sided with Cailles as a favor to then
Governor-General Wood who was a friend of
Cailles. Said statements were published in a
newspaper and likewise substantiated by four
affidavits.

Facts: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed

a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz
Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that
petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of
service by certifying that all civil and criminal
cases which have been submitted for decision for
a period of 90 days have been determined and
decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in
truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no
decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10
criminal cases that have been submitted for
decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that
petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of
service for 17 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Gomez is guilty of contempt?

Issue: Whether or not the action of the

respondent is filed in the proper venue?

HELD:
No. The Supreme Court decided not hold Gomez
for contempt.

Held:

In re: Gomez
43 Phil 376

The Supreme Court ruled that litigants and

lawyers should not be held to too strict an
account for words said in the heat of the
moment, because of dissatisfaction at losing
cases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language. The rule
in the more progressive jurisdictions is, that
courts, when a case is finished, are subject to the
same criticism as other people.

No. criminal complaint against the judge arises

from his administrative duties should be filed in
the Supreme Court.
A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
administratively liable to the SC for serious
misconduct and criminally liable to the State
under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious
act.
In the absence of any administrative action
taken against him by the Court with regard to his

certificates of service, the investigation being

conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
the Courts power of administrative supervision
over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively
vests in the SC administrative supervision over
all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal
trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only
the SC that can oversee the judges and court
personnels compliance with all laws, and take
the proper administrative action against them if
they commit any violation thereof. No other
branch of government may intrude into this
power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Respondent's act is violative of Rule 11.05
stating that a lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
Complaints against Judges and Justices should be
filed in the SC through OCA (office of Court
Adminsitrator) if case is administrative in nature;
and to the Office of Ombudsman if complaint is
criminal and not purely administrative in nature.
But criminal complaints against Judges in
connection with their duties should be lodged in
the SC, not in the Ombudsman.
In this case, the criminal complaint against the
judge arises from his administrative duties, and
thus should be rightful for the Ombudsman to
defer action and refer the same to the SC for
determination whether said judge or court
employee had acted within the scope of their
administrative duties.
>>
Gabionza vs CA
G.R. 140311; March 30, 2001
Facts:
Petitioner Gabionza was accused for violating
Sec. 22, pars. (a) and (d), in relation to Sec. 28,
par. (e), of RA 1161 for willfully' unlawfully failing
and refusing to remit to the Social Security
System (SSS) contributions for SSS, Medicare
and Employee Compensation (EC) and its
corresponding penatly. Four years after his
arraignment, the public prosecutor filed a Motion
for Leave of Court to Amend Information, to

change the material dates stated in the

Information which the Petitioner opposed stating
the
amendment was substantial in nature, and
allowing the same would be a violation of his
right to be informed of the cause and nature of
the accusation against him.
Issue:
Is the contention of Gabionza meritorious?
Ruling:
No, the contention of Gabionza is not
meritorious. The RTC granted the motion and
allowed amendment of the Information, ruling
that the amendment pertained only to matters of
form. It is not even necessary to state in the
Information the precise time the offense was
committed.
Jurisprudence allows amendments to information
so long as: (a) it does not deprive the accused of
the right to invoke prescription;(b) it does not
affect or alter the nature of the offense originally
charged (c) it does not involve a change in the
basic theory of the prosecution so as to require
the accused to undergo any material change or
modification in his defense;(d) it does not expose
the accused to a charge which would call for a
higher penalty;and, (5) it does not cause surprise
nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to
meet the new averment.
This is to ensure speedy and efficient
administration of Justice in accordance with
Canon 12 of the code of professional
responsibility.
In the case at bar, it is clear that the questioned
amendment is one of form and not of substance.
The allegation of time when an offense is
committed is a matter of form, and is not a
material ingredient of the offense. Thus,
petitioner's argument that the amendment
prejudiced his rights is untenable.
Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in
support of his allegation that the amendment
would adversely affect his rights. In fact, the
penalty imposed for this violation is constant at
six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years, regardless of the number of infractions.