Montecillo and Atty. del Mar v. Gica G.R. No. L-36800. October 21, 1974 Doctrine: It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation. Facts: Francisco M. Gica filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation and a civil case for damages against Jorge Montecillo after the latter called the former "stupid" or a "fool." The civil case for damages eventually reached the 4th Division of the Court of Appeals wherein it ruled in favor of Gica and awarded him damages. Atty. Quirico Del Mar, as Montecillo’s counsel, moved for a reconsideration of said decision with a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of the RPC on "Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment" and "Judgment Rendered through Negligence", and the innuendo that the CA allowed itself to be deceived. When the motion was denied, the CA remarked that the terminology of the motion insinuated that the CA rendered an unjust judgment, that it abetted a falsification and it permitted itself to be deceived. It admonished Atty. del Mar to remember that threats and abusive language cannot compel any court of justice to grant reconsideration. Despite this, Atty. del Mar persisted and in his second motion for reconsideration, made another threat by stating that his next appeal would be addressed to the President of the Philippines. Because of such behaviour, the CA, through a resolution ordered Atty. del Mar to explain why he should not be punished for contempt of court. Atty. del Mar made a written explanation wherein he said that the CA could not be threatened and he was not making any threat but only informing them of the course of action he would follow. He also informed the CA that he sent a letter to the President of the Philippines, furnishing them a copy thereof, and requesting the Justices to take into consideration the contents of said letter. Not content, Atty. del Mar sent another letter to the CA wherein he reminded them of a civil case he instituted against Justices of the Supreme Court for damages in the amount of P200,000 for a decision rendered not in accordance with law and justice, stating that he would not like to do it again but would do so if provoked. The CA, through a resolution, concluded that Atty. del Mar is guilty of contempt and condemned to pay a fine of P200.00 and ordered suspended from the practice of law. In response to the CA’s decision, Atty. del Mar filed a civil case for damages against the 3 Justices of the CA’s 4th Division, trying to hold them liable for their decision in the earlier civil case. Said case for damages was eventually terminated by compromise agreement after Atty. del Mar himself moved for the dismissal of his complaint, apologized to the CA and the Justices concerned, and agreed to pay damages in favor of the Justices. Not giving up on his case, Atty. del Mar, filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court praying to reverse the CA’s decision on the civil case of Gica against Montecillo. The SC denied the petition and in response, Atty. del Mar filed a motion for reconsideration and wrote a letter to the SC’s Clerk of Court requesting the names of the Justices of the SC who supported the resolution denying his petition, together with the names of the Justices favoring his motion for reconsideration. Such motion was denied and Atty. del Mar, aggrieved, made a manifestation before the SC, stating that had the Clerk of Court given him the list he asked for, he would have filed the same suits against the SC Justices like he did with the CA Justices.
As a reaction, the SC ordered Atty. del Mar to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the contemptuous statements contained in his manifestation. In response, Atty. del Mar gave a defiant justification of his contemptuous statements and attached the criminal and civil case he filed against the CA Justices as a veiled threat. In the mind of Atty. del Mar, there is rampant corruption and injustice in the government, and those that denied his motion are among the corrupt. Finally, when the SC was executing the suspension order of Atty. del Mar from the earlier CA resolution, Atty. del Mar filed a motion for reconsideration. Atty. del Mar was given the chance to explain and stated that he was suffered repeated strokes and high blood pressure which rendered him physically and mentally unstable. He apologized for the mistakes he might have committed but persisted in his view that he was justified in filing cases against the Justices of the CA and SC. In the end he stated that due to sickness and old age, he decided to retire from the practice of law and asked the permission of the SC to release him from the obligation he has contracted with his clients as regards all his pending cases. With full realization that a practicing lawyer facing contempt proceedings cannot just be allowed to voluntarily retire from the practice of law, an act which would negate the inherent power of the court to punish him for contempt in defense of its integrity and honor, the SC denied said prayer of Atty. del Mar without prejudice to his making arrangement directly with his clients. Issue: Whether Atty. del Mar should be held in contempt of court and be suspended from the practice of law? Held: Yes. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation. Criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially. It is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. Atty. del Mar’s actions in resorting to veiled threats to make both Courts reconsider their respective stand in the decision and the resolution that spelled disaster for his client cannot be anything but pure insolence for said tribunals. It is manifest that Atty. del Mar has scant 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. Atty. del Mar was ordered to be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
