Sei sulla pagina 1di 1


Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty. Quirico del Mar represented Montecillo
and he successfully defended Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to win their counterclaim thus
the lower court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudged moral damages.

Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the latter court reversed the same.
Atty. Del Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of Appeals
judges indicating that he thinks the CA justices “knowingly rendered an unjust decision” and “judgment has been
rendered through negligence” and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.

The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone with the court. Del Mar then
filed a second MFR where he again made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he should
not be punished for contempt.

Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he sent to the President of the
Philippines asking the said justices to consider the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del Mar
then filed a civil case against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower court but the civil case was eventually
dismissed by reason of a compromise agreement where del Mar agreed to pay damages to the justices. Eventually,
the CA suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.

The issue reached the Supreme Court. Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his suspension as well as the CA
decision as to the Montecillo case. The SC denied both and this earned the ire of del Mar as he demanded from the
Clerk of the Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against him.

The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation as to why he should not be disciplined.
Del Mar in his explanation instead tried to justify his actions even stating that had he not been “convinced that
human efforts in [pursuing the case] will be fruitless” he would have continued with the civil case against the CA
justices. In his explanation, del Mar also reasoned that even the Supreme Court is part among “the corrupt, the
grafters and those allegedly committing injustice”.

Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices but the judge who handled the case
dismissed the same.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the
court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards
the court so essential to the proper administration of justice.

It is manifest that del Mar has limited respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of
alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by claiming that they
knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if not with
gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client.

Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.