CONTEMPT OF LAWYERS WHO PHYSICALLY FOUGHT AGAINST EACH OTHER

INSIDE THE TRIAL COURT

Seven court employees accused Judge A for violating Canon 3, Rule 3.10 Old Code
of Judicial Conduct that provides: A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in
the court. Judge A violated it by non-doing of anything to pacify two (2) opposing
counsels who physically fought each other inside the court room. According to
complainants, when the two opposing lawyers physically attacked against each other,
Judge A did not stop or pacify them rather she banged her gavel once and uttered
thrice ORDER IN COURT! Thereafter, Judge A left the courtroom by going inside
the chambers while they were the ones who pacified the fighting lawyers. They
complained Judge A did not cite the fighting lawyers in contempt of court for their
alleged lack of benefit to court in violation of under Rule 3.10 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct mandating Judges to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct. These similar incidents
for violations of the Old and New Code of Judicial Conduct were filed by seventy court
employees in another administrative case against Judge A.

Is Judge A administratively liable for not doing anything to pacify the fighting lawyers
and for not citing them in contempt of court? The answer is the negative.

In life, people have different reactions to strange incidents. It was the first time Judge A
witnessed two male lawyers physically fought against each other in court. It is not Judge
As principal duty to pacify lawyers fighting against each other, such duty to pacify
belongs to security guards. Such duty belongs to courts bailiff that they have none
because their court is very much undermanned. Records show that Judge A called up
the Officer-in-Charge to ask help from the security guards who were the ones who
brought the two lawyers outside the courtroom premises. Judge A did not do anything
other than maintain her cool, banged the gavel several times while uttering ORDER IN
COURT! then quietly went inside the backdoor of her chambers because she might be
punched by either or both lawyers if she will personally pacify them who are very angry
at each other at that time. Judge As order states:
XXX XXX XXX
At todays hearing, both counsels Atty. D, for the plaintiff, and Atty. E, for the
defendant, appeared.

Before the Court could resolve the motion, Atty. D and Atty. E physically attack each
other such as fist-fighting and chair-throwing that disrupted the solemnity of the

1
proceedings. Some of the male court staff pacified them. The court benches and tables
were in disarray. Security guards came to aid the court. They escorted Atty. D and
Atty. E outside the courts premises.
Apologies of both counsels are noted. However, to correct them for their misbehavior in
open court pursuant to Rule 71, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court, they are cited
in contempt of court and adjudged to pay One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) fine.
SO ORDERED
XXX XXX XXX
Contrary to the accusation of the complainants, the records show that Judge A cited
them in contempt of court. The two lawyers paid the corresponding fine imposed upon
them under the Revised Rules of Court as evidenced by receipts. The courts order
citing the lawyers in contempt of court together with their compliance to the courts order
together with proofs of payment of fines were submitted by Judge A to the Supreme
Court. Complainants deliberately lied under oath in this administrative complaint against
Judge A to make them liable for multiple counts of Perjury.

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Judge Bibiano Colasito, Vice Executive
Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto Mangalindan Jr. , Judge Catherine Manodon,
Miguel Infante, Emma Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr., Lydia Casas,
Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Virginia
D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J. San Miguel, Maxima C. Sayo, Romer
H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L. Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen, Norman Garcia, Noel Labid,
Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero Lopez, Ana Maria V. Francisco, Soledad J.
Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida, Evelyn P. Depalobos,
Joseph B. Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore, Fortunato E. Diezmo,
Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas, Eduardo E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T.
Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J. Cayanan, Manolo
Manuel E. Garcia, Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos, Armina B. Almonte,
Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba, Marlon M. Suligan,
Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie F. Aguinaldo, Jasmine L. Lindain,
Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial, Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H. Aviles, Ana Lea M.
Estacio, Cristina E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M. Ching, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P. Ubana, Marvin O.
Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina, Sevilla B. Del Castillo, Aida Josefina
Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan, Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D. Perez, and Edmundo
Vergara vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu.