En Banc

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. V. SANCHEZ

GR No. 75209 September 30, 1987

KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY V. NLRC

GR No. 78791 September 30, 1987

Per Curiam

SUBJECT: Canon 13 Influencing or Giving appearance of Influencing Court

FACTS:
The Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Union for
Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia had been conducting pickets
which intensified during the period of July 8-10, 1987 outside Padre Faura
gate of the SC building. Since June 17, 1981

On July 10, the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the
opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring the union leaders and their
counsels and other individuals to appear before the Court on July 14 and
then and there to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of
court. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, was
further required to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt
with.

Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned,
apologized to the Court with an assurance that such acts will not be
repeated. He prayed for the Courts leniency considering that the picket was
actually spearheaded by the leaders of the PAMANTIK, an unregistered
loosed alliance of about 75 unions in the southern Tagalog area and not by
either the UFE or KILU.

ISSUE: WON the respondents should be held in contempt and Atty. Espinas
be administratively dealt with.

HELD:
Grievances, if any, should be ventilated to the proper channels, i.e., through
appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect
due to the Courts as impartial administrator of justice entitled to proceed to
the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside
interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the
administration of justice.

It is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and

juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every
extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced
in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by
bias, prejudice or sympathies. (In re Stolen).
The acts of the respondents are therefore not only an affront to the dignity of
the Court, but equally a violation of the constitutional right of the adverse
party and the citizenry at large to have their causes tried fairly.

The right of free speech and of assembly of the individuals herein are not
violated because any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice
through the exercise of either rights amounts to an abuse thereof and is no
loner within the ambit of constitutional protection. However, being non-
lawyers, the duty and responsibility of advising them rest primarily and
heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record, Atty. Espinas. It is the
duty of all members of the legal profession as officers of the court to properly
apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward
courts of justice.

The contempt charges were dismissed.