3aepublit of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme ~ourt
:manila

EN BANC

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution

dated JULY 3, 2018, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 217910 - Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III, etitioner vs. Civil
Registrar General, respondent, LGBTS Christian Chor h, Inc., Reverend
Crescencio "Ceejay" Agbayani, Jr., Marlon Felipe, and M ria Arlyn "Sugar"
Ibanez, petitioners-in-intervention, Attys. Fernando P. erito, Ronaldo T.
Reyes, Jeremy I. Gatdula, Cristina A. Montes, and Ru 1no Policarpio III,
intervenors)-

For his acts during the preliminary conference for the June 19, 2018 Oral
Arguments of this case, Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Atty. Falcis) is held
liable for direct contempt of this Court.

In accordance with this Court's March 6, 2018 Advisory, 1 a preliminary

conference was held on June 5, 2018 at the Session Hall of this Court. Atty. Falcis
appeared in his capacities as petitioner and counsel for petitioners-in-intervention.
The Office of the Solicitor General represented respondent. Atty. Fernando P.
Perito gave prior notice that he would be unable to attend. Associate Justice
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen presided over the proceedings. Associate Justice Alfredo
Benjamin S. Caguioa was also in attendance. 2

At the start of the preliminary conference, Atty. Falcis failed to rise and
manifest his presence when appearances for petitioner and petitioners-in-
intervention were called. He also failed to rise during the initial round of
questioning by the Justices. When responding to them, he failed to address them in
keeping with customary courtesies. Throughout the proceedings, he acted as
though he was unprepared and without knowledge of the decorum typical to
appearing in court. Atty. Falcis attempted to explain that he had contracted the
services of outside counsel to appear in collaboration with him, but was hard put to
specifically name a lawyer or a law firm. The law firm he subsequently 1
Rollo, pp. 236-239.
Id. at 257-258, Preliminary Conference Order.
Notice of Resolution -2- G.R. No. 217910
July 3, 2018

mentioned, Molo Sia Dy Tuazon Ty Coloma Law Offices (MOSVELDTT), had

yet to enter its appearance in this case. 3

Atty. Falcis was attired in "a casual jacket, cropped jeans, and loafers
without socks. " 4 When questioned by Associate Justice Leonen why he was so
attired, he claimed that he had attended a meeting with advocates in Makati earlier
that day. He was attired in such a manner despite notice as early as March that he
was scheduled to appear before this Court.

Because of his appearance and conduct during the preliminary conference,

Atty. Falcis was ordered to file his written explanation no later than June 6, 2018
as to why he should not be cited in contempt. 5

On June 6, 2018, Atty. Falcis filed his Compliance (Re: Decorum During the
Preliminary Conference), 6 where he apologized for his poor decorum and
appearance during the preliminary conference. He explained that he had engaged
MOSVELDTT to assist him in the oral arguments. However, due to
miscommunication with the handling lawyer, Atty. Darwin Angeles,
MOSVELDTT was unable to file its entry of appearance in time for June 5, 2018.
Thus, as the only counsel on record, Atty. Falcis recognized that he should be the
one to attend the preliminary conference. He only realized that he was
underdressed for the preliminary conference when he entered the Session Hall, by
which time it was too late for him to change into a more appropriate attire. 7

A person guilty of misbehaving in court and showing disrespect towards

courts may be punished for direct contempt. Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court states:

Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. - A person guilty of

misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive
personalities towards others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to
subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be
summarily adjudged in contempt by such court and punished by a fine not
exceeding two thousand pesos, or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or
both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or by a
fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day,
or both, if it be a lower court.

In Patricio v. Hon. Suplico:" 1

Id. at 262, Compliance.
Id. at 258.
Id.
Id. at 261-263.
Id. at 262.
273 Phil. 353 (1991) [PerJ. Narvasa, Third Division].
 Notice of Resolution -3- G.R. No. 217910
July 3, 2018

Direct contempt is "misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as

to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect
towards the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when
lawfully required so to do." Where the act of contumacy is not committed infacie
curiae, or "in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt
the proceedings before the same," i.e., perpetrated outside of the sitting of the
court, it is considered indirect, or constructive, contempt, and may include
"(m)isbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or
in his official transactions," "(d)isobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court
or judge," (a)ny abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process or
proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt," or "any improper
conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice," etc. 9 (Citations omitted)

Atty. Falcis acted in a contumacious manner during the June 5, 2018

preliminary conference.

Atty. Falcis is not an uninformed layperson. He has been a member of the

Philippine Bar for a number of years. As an officer of the court, he is duty bound
to maintain towards this Court a respectful attitude essential to the proper
administration of justice. 10 He is charged with knowledge of the proper manner by
which lawyers are to conduct themselves during judicial proceedings. His
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility exhort him to maintain
the requisite decency and to afford dignity to this Court.

Lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence. Under
Rule 18.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "[a] lawyer shall not handle
any legal matter without adequate preparation." Atty. Falcis' appearance and
behavior during the preliminary conference reveal the inadequacy of his
preparation. Considering that the Advisory for Oral Arguments was served on the
parties three (3) months prior to the preliminary conference, it was inexcusably
careless for any of them to appear before this Court so barely prepared.

The preliminary conference was not mere make-work. Rather, it was

essential to the orderly conduct of proceedings and, ultimately, to the judicious
disposition of this case. Appearance in it by counsels and parties should not be
taken lightly.

Atty. Falcis jeopardized the cause of his clients. Without even uttering a
word, he recklessly courted disfavor with this Court. His bearing and demeanor t
9
Id. at 362-363.
10
Soriano and Padilla v. Court ofAppeals, 416 Phil. 226, 255 (2001) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
Notice of Resolution -4- G.R. No. 217910
July 3, 2018'

were a disservice to his clients and to the human rights advocacy he purports to
represent.

Atty. Falcis is reminded of the requirement under Canon 11 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility for lawyers to "observe and maintain the respect due to
the Courts and to judicial officers and [to] insist on similar conduct by others."
This duty encompasses appearances before courts in proper attire.

This Court does not insist on sartorial pomposity. It does not prescribe
immutable minutiae for physical appearance. Still, professional courtesy demands
that persons, especially lawyers, having business before courts, act with discretion
and manifest this discretion in their choice of apparel.

Lawyers make statements and impressions through assertions properly

pleaded and manifested before courts. It is not for their cavalier attire to substitute
for substance and proficiency.

Preliminary conferences and oral arguments are official judicial functions.

Their purpose is to aid this Court in resolving weighty issues, often directly
involving no less than the Constitution, that affect the state of the nation and the
lives of many persons. It is incumbent upon all parties present to observe the
solemnities of these proceedings. Atty. Falcis has miserably failed to accord this
Court and his clients' cause the dignity and respect they deserve.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III

GUILTY of DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT. He is hereby
ADMONISHED to properly conduct himself in court and to be more circumspect
of the duties attendant to his being a lawyer. He is STERNLY WARNED that
any further contemptuous acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be included in the personal record of Atty.

Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III and entered in his file in the Office of the Bar
Confidant." (adv6o)

Very truly yours,

~ EDGAR'b:RICHftTA
~erk of Court l\

r (XU(~
' '

Notice of Resolution -5- G.R. No. 217910

July 3, 2018

HON. ANTONIO T. CARPIO (x) THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)

Senior Associate Justice
HON. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO. JR. (x)
HON. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO (x)
HON. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA (x)
HON. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN (x)
HON. MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO (x)
HON. ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE (x)
HON. MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN (x)
HON. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA (x)
HON. ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA (x)
HON. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES (x)
HON. NOEL G. TIJAM (x)
HON. ANDRES B. REYES, JR. (x)
HON. ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO (x)
Associate Justices
Supreme Court
ATTY. JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS Ill (reg)
Counsel for Petitioner
47-E Scout Rallos St., Brgy. Laging Handa
Quezon City 1103
ATTYS. ALFREDO B. MOLO Ill,
ALDRICH FITZ U. DY,
DARWIN P. ANGELES and
KEISHA TRINA M. GUANGKO (reg)
Counsel for Petitioner and Intervenor
Unit 901 One Corporate Center
Dona Julia Vargas cor. Meralco Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Asst. Sol. Gen. REX BERNARDO L. PASCUAL (reg)
Asst. Sol. Gen. HERMES L. OCAMPO (reg)
Asst. Sol. Gen. RAYMUND I. RIGODON (reg)
Asst. Sol. Gen. PENAFRANCIA C. DEVERA (reg)
Office of the Solicitor General
Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City
ATTY. FERNANDO P. PERITO (reg)
Intervenor
Rm. 9 Condopaz Bldg.
Villa Carolina Subdivision
Tunasan, Muntinlupa City
ATTYS. RONALDO T. REYES,
JEREMY I. GATDULA,
CRISTINA A. MONTES and
RUFINO POLICARPIO 111 (reg)
Counsel for Oppositors-lntervenors
Unit 903 Richmond Plaza, San Miguel Avenue
Ortigas Center, Brgy. San Antonio
Pasig City 1605
1

ATTY. MA. CRISTINA B. LAYUSA (x)

Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant
OBC, Supreme Court

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

Supreme Court

G.R. No. 217910

kat 7/3/18 (adv60) 7/9/18