1. Sangalang v. IAC
5
2/8/2015 ELibrary Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28296 1/5 257 Phil. 930 EN BANC [ G.R. No. 71169, August 30, 1989 ] JOSE D. SANGALANG AND LUTGARDA D. SANGALANG, PETITIONERS, FELIX C. GASTON AND DOLORES R. GASTON, JOSE V. BRIONES AND ALICIA R. BRIONES, AND BELAIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., INTERVENORSPETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND AYALA CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 74376. AUGUST 30, 1989] BELAIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ROSARIO DE JESUS TENORIO, AND CECILIA GONZALVEZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 76394. AUGUST 30, 1989] BELAIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND EDUARDO AND BUENA ROMUALDEZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 78182. AUGUST 30, 1989] BELAIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, DOLORES FILLEY AND J. ROMERO & ASSOCIATES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 82281. AUGUST 30, 1989] BELAIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, VIOLETA MONCAL, AND MAJAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. RESOLUTION SARMIENTO, J.: The incident before the Court refers to charges for contempt against Atty. J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and Lutgarda Sangalang. (G.R. No. 71169.)
description
case text
Transcript of 1. Sangalang v. IAC
-
2/8/2015 ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28296 1/5
257Phil.930
ENBANC
[G.R.No.71169,August30,1989]
JOSED.SANGALANGANDLUTGARDAD.SANGALANG,PETITIONERS,FELIXC.GASTONANDDOLORESR.GASTON,JOSEV.BRIONESANDALICIAR.BRIONES,ANDBELAIR
VILLAGEASSOCIATION,INC.,INTERVENORSPETITIONERS,VS.INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURTANDAYALA
CORPORATION,RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.NO.74376.AUGUST30,1989]
BELAIRVILLAGEASSOCIATIONINC.,PETITIONER,VS.THEINTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURT,ROSARIODEJESUSTENORIO,ANDCECILIAGONZALVEZ,RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.NO.76394.AUGUST30,1989]
BELAIRVILLAGEASSOCIATION,INC.,VS.THECOURTOFAPPEALS,ANDEDUARDOANDBUENAROMUALDEZ,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.NO.78182.AUGUST30,1989]
BELAIRVILLAGEASSOCIATION,INC.,PETITIONER,VS.COURTOFAPPEALS,DOLORESFILLEYANDJ.ROMERO&
ASSOCIATES,RESPONDENTS.
[G.R.NO.82281.AUGUST30,1989]
BELAIRVILLAGEASSOCIATION,INC.,PETITIONER,VS.COURTOFAPPEALS,VIOLETAMONCAL,ANDMAJALDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
SARMIENTO,J.:
The incident before theCourt refers to charges for contempt against Atty. J.Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and LutgardaSangalang.(G.R.No.71169.)
-
2/8/2015 ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28296 2/5
On February 2, 1989, the Court issued a Resolution, requiring, among otherthings, Atty. Sangco to show cause why he should not be punished forcontempt "for using intemperate and accusatory language."[1] On March 2,1989,Atty.Sangcofiledanexplanation.
The Court finds Atty. Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration,reproducedasfollows:
...
ThisDecisionofthisCourtintheaboveentitledcasereadsmorelikeaBriefforAyala...[2]
...
... [t]he Court not only put to serious question its own integrity andcompetencebutalsojeopardizeditsowncampaignagainstgraftandcorruptionundeniablypervadingthejudiciary...[3]
...
Theblatantdisregardofcontrolling,documentedandadmittedfactsnotputinissue,suchasthosesummarily ignoredinthiscasetheextraordinaryeffortsexerted to justify such arbitrariness and the very strained and unwarrantedconclusionsdrawntherefrom,areunparalleledinthehistoryofthisCourt...[4]
...
. . .[T]o ignorethefact thatJupiterStreetwasoriginallyconstructedfortheexclusive benefit of the residents of BelAir Village, or rule that respondentCourt'sadmissionofsaidfactis"inaccurate",asAyala'sCounselhimselfwouldliketodobutdidnotevencontend, isamanifestationofthisCourt'sunusualpartialitytoAyalaandputstoseriousquestionitsintegrityonthataccount.[5]
...
...[i]tissubmittedthatthisrulingisthemostseriousreflectionontheCourt'scompetenceandintegrityandexemplifiesitsmanifestpartialitytowardsAyala.Itisablatantdisregardofdocumentedandincontrovertibleanduncontrovertedfactual findings of the trial court fully supported by the records and the truesignificanceofthosefactswhichboththerespondentcourtandthisCourtdidnotbothertoreadandconsequentlydidnotconsideranddiscuss,leastofallinthe manner it did with respect to those in which it arrived at conclusionsfavorabletoAyala.[6]
...
TototallydisregardAyala'swrittenletterofapplicationforspecialmembership
-
2/8/2015 ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28296 3/5
inBAVAwhichclearlystatethatsuchmembershipisnecessarybecauseitisanewdevelopment in their relationshipwith respect to its intention togive itscommerciallotbuyersanequalrighttotheuseofJupiterStreetwithoutgivinganyreasontherefor,smacksofjudicialarrogance...[7]
...
...[A]realltheseunusualexerciseofsucharbitrarinessabovesuspicion?WillthecurrentcampaignofthisCourtagainstgraftandcorruptioninthejudiciarybeenhancedbysuchbroaddiscretionarypowerofcourts?[8]
disparaging, intemperate, and uncalledfor. His suggestions that the Courtmighthavebeenguiltyofgraftandcorruptioninactingonthesecasesarenotonly unbecoming, but comes, as well, as an open assault upon the Court'shonorandintegrity.Inrenderingitsjudgment,theCourtyieldedtotherecordsbefore it,and to the recordsalone,andnot tooutside influences,much less,the influence of any of the parties. Atty. Sangco, as a former judge of aninferiorcourt,shouldknowbetterthatinanylitigation,onepartyprevails,buthissuccesswillnotjustifyindictmentsofbriberybytheotherparty.Heshouldbeawarethatbecauseofhisaccusations,hehasdoneanenormousdisservicetotheintegrityofthehighesttribunalandtothestabilityoftheadministrationofjusticeingeneral.
Asaformerjudge,Atty.Sangcoalsohastobeawarethatwearenotboundbythefindingsofthetrialcourt(inwhichhisclientsprevailed).Butifwedidnotagreewiththefindingsofthecourtaquo,itdoesnotfollowthatwehadactedarbitrarilybecause,precisely,itistheofficeofanappealtoreviewthefindingsoftheinferiorcourt.
Tobesure,Atty.Sangcoisentitledtohisopinion,butnottoalicensetoinsultthe Court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta adhominem.Inthatevent, it istheCourt'sduty"toacttopreservethehonoranddignity...andtosafeguardthemoralsandethicsofthelegalprofession."[9]
We are not satisfied with his explanation that he was merely defending theinterestsofhisclients.AsweheldinLaureta,alawyer's"firstdutyisnottohisclientbuttotheadministrationofjusticetothatend,hisclient'ssuccessiswhollysubordinateandhisconductoughttoandmustalwaysbescrupulouslyobservantoflawandethics."[10]Andwhilealawyermustadvocatehisclient'scauseinutmostearnestandwiththemaximumskillhecanmarshal,heisnotatlibertytoresorttoarrogance,intimidation,andinnuendo.
That"[t]hequestionspropoundedwerenotmeantorintendedtoaccusebutto...challengethethinkingintheDecision,[11]comesasaneleventhhourefforttocleansewhatisinfactandplainly,anunfoundedaccusation.Certainly,itistheprerogativeofanunsuccessfulpartytoaskforreconsideration,butaswe
-
2/8/2015 ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28296 4/5
heldinLaureta,litigantsshouldnot"'thinkthattheywillwinahearingbythesheermultiplicationofwords'."[12] Aswe indicated (seeDecision denying themotions for reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and82281,anddecidingG.R.No.60727,datedAugust25,1989),themovantshaveraisednonewargumentstowarrantreconsiderationandtheycannotveilthatfactwithinflammatorylanguage.
Atty.Sangcohimselfadmitsthat"[a]sajudgeIhavelearnedtolivewithandacceptwithgracecriticismsofmydecisions."[13]Apparently,hedoesnotpracticewhathepreaches.Ofcourse, theCourt isnotunreceptive tocommentandcritiqueof itsdecisions,butprovidedtheyarefairanddignified.Atty.SangcohastranscendedthelimitsoffaircommentforwhichhedeservesthisCourt'srebuke.
Inour"showcause"Resolution,wesoughttoholdAtty.Sangco incontempt,specifically,forresorttoinsultinglanguageamountingtodisrespecttowardtheCourt within the meaning of Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of Court.Clearly,however,hisactalsoconstitutesmalpracticeasthetermisdefinedbyCanon11oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,asfollows:
CANON 11 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THERESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS ANDSHOULDINSISTONSIMILARCONDUCTBYOTHERS.
Rule11.01...
Rule11.02...
Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive ormenacinglanguageorbehaviorbeforetheCourts.
Rule11.04 A lawyer shouldnotattribute to a Judgemotives notsupportedbytherecordorhavenomaterialitytothecase.
Rule11.05...
Thus, aside from contempt, Atty. Sangco faces punishment for professionalmisconductormalpractice.
WHEREFORE: Atty. J.CezarSangco is (1)SUSPENDED from thepracticeoflawforthree(3)monthseffectivefromreceipthereof,and(2)ORDEREDtopayafineofP500.00payablefromreceipthereof.LetacopyofthisResolutionbeenteredinhisrecord.
ITISSOORDERED.
Fernan,C.J.,MelencioHerrera,Cruz,Paras,Feliciano,Gancayco,Padilla,Bidin,Cortes,GrioAquino,Medialdea,andRegalado,JJ.,concur.Narvasa,J.,NopartonaccountofcloseassociationGutierrez,Jr.,J.,Nopart.IhavebeenincloseassociationwithJudgeSangco
-
2/8/2015 ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/28296 5/5
inthepast.
[1]Rollo,G.R.No.71169,410.
[2]Id.,387.
[3]Id.
[4]Id.,388.
[5]Id.
[6]Id.,394.
[7]Id.,407.
[8]Id.,408.
[9]InRe:WenceslaoLaureta,March12,1987,148SCRA382,400.
[10]Supra,422.
[11]Rollo,id.,416.
[12]InRe:Laureta,supra,402.
[13]Rollo,id.,417.
Source:SupremeCourtELibrary
ThispagewasdynamicallygeneratedbytheELibraryContentManagementSystem(ELibCMS)
