THIS IS THE OFFICIAL TEMPLATE, DO NOT REMOVE THIS HEADER; DO NOT CHANGE ANY FORMATTING.

In Re: Laureta
148 SCRA 382

FACTS:

Maravilla Illustre wrote to the justices of the SC, complaining about the dismissal of her case (a
land dispute involving large estate) by a minute-resolution. Illustre claims that it was an unjust
resolution deliberately and knowingly promulgated by the 1st Division, that it was railroaded with
such hurry beyond the limits of legal and judicial ethics.

Illustre also threatened in her letter that, “there is nothing final in this world. This case is far from
finished by a long shot.” She threatened that she would call for a press conference.

Illustre’s letter basically attacks the participation of Justice Pedro Yap in the first division. It was
established that Justice Yap was previously a law partner of Atty. Ordonez, now the Solgen and
counsel for the opponents.

The letters were referred to the SC en banc. The SC clarified that when the minute-resolution was
issued, the presiding justice then was not Justice Yap but Justice Abad Santos (who was about to
retire), and that Justice Yap was not aware that Atty Ordonez was the opponents counsel. It was
also made clear that Justice Yap eventually inhibited himself from the case.

Still, Illustre wrote letters to the other justices (Narvasa, Herrera, Cruz), again with more threats
to “expose the kind of judicial performance readily constituting travesty of justice.”

True to her threats, Illustre later filed a criminal complaint before the Tanodbayan, charging the
Justices with knowingly rendering an unjust Minute Resolution. Justice Yap and Solgen Ordonez
were also charged of using their influence in the First Division in rendering said Minute
Resolution.

Atty LAURETA was the counsel of Illustre. He circulated copies of the complaint to the press,
without any copy furnished the Court, nor the Justices charged. It was made to appear that the
Justices were charged with graft and corruption.

The Tanodbayan dismissed the complaint.

Now, the SC is charging them with contempt.

They claim that the letters were private communication, and that they did not intend to dishonor
the court.

ISSUE:

WON privacy of communication was violated

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL TEMPLATE, DO NOT REMOVE THIS HEADER; DO NOT CHANGE ANY FORMATTING.

RULING:

The letters formed part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire court.

There is no vindictive reprisal involved here. The Court’s authority and duty under the premises
is unmistakable. It must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate
lawyer, mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.

We’re not convinced that Atty Laureta had nothing to do with Ilustre’s letters, nor with the
complaint filed with the tanodbayan. Atty Laureta repeated disparaging remarks such as “undue
influence”, powerful influence” in his pleadings. This was bolstered by the report that Laureta
distributed copies of the complaint to the newspaper companies in envelopes bearing his name. He
was also heard over the radio. Lastly, as Illustre’s lawyer, he had control of the proceedings.

SC resolutions are beyond investigation from other departments of the government because of
separation of powers. The correctness of the SC decisions is conclusive upon other branches of
government.