Consti I: Art. VIII Sec.

1: “power to preserve
In Re: Laureta its honor”
207
G.R. No. L-68635 May 14, 1987 PER CURIAM: Matt Ledesma
Petitioners: Respondents:
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. AL."
WENCESLAO LAURETA, AND OF CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EVA MARAVILLA-
ILUSTRE in G.R. No. 68635, entitled "EVA
MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE
Recit Ready Summary

Illustre sent letters to the Justices of the SC after they did not rule in her favor in a case she was handling.
The letter was basically like a reconsideration of some sort of the minute-resolution that was issued [pls
read the facts]. After reviewing the case again, the court found no reason to take action. Laureta once
again sent a second batch of letters to various Justices of the Court, but this time with a warning that no
action will lead to her exposing the case to another forum of justice (she was referring to the Tanodbayan
[Ombudsman]).

Through Atty. Laureta [her counsel], the complaints were circulated to the press, without any copy
furnished with the Court, nor to the Justices charged. It was made to appear that the Justices were
charged with graft and corruption.

SC is charging Ilustre with contempt and held Laureta administratively liable. As a defense, they claim
that the letter was private communication, and that since there was no intent to dishonor the court, they
cannot be charged.

The issue before the court iis W/N Ilustre be held in contempt and should Atty. Laureta be held
administratively liable - YES and W/N there was “vindictive reprisal” on the part of the Supreme
Court? [In other words is the SC maliciously retaliating against respondents?] - NO

SC held that it was proper to hold Illustre in contempt and Atty. Laureta administratively liable. The court
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.

Furthermore, it is clear that the letter and the complaint to the Tanodbayan was written by Atty. Laureta.
The choice of words in the letter reveal the not-too-hidden hand of Atty. Laureta. There were also reports
that when the complaints were distributed to editors of newspapers, the envelopes bore the name of
Laureta. He violated Canon 16 of the Canons of Legal Ethics.

There was no display of arrogance on the part of the SC, instead this a restatement of the fundamental
principle of separation of powers and checks and balances. Litigants cannot be allowed to claim that
members of the SC acted in bad faith or rendered an unjust resolution. To allow this would be to destroy
the authenticity, integrity and conclusiveness of such collegiate acts and resolutions and to disregard
utterly the presumption of regular performance of official duty. To allow such collateral attack would
destroy the separation of powers and undermine the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all
justiciable disputes.

The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield for
contemptuous acts against the Court.

Facts
1. This is a per curiam resolution in the matter of proceedings for disciplinary action against Atty.
Wenceslao Laureta, and of contempt proceedings against Eva Maravilla-Ilustre.

1
 2. Ilustre sent letters to Justices Narvasa, Herrera, Cruz and Feliciano (members of the First
Division of the SC) that carried a threat to effect a change of Court’s adverse resolution in her
case.
3. She claimed that the minute-resolution on her case was “railroaded with such
hurry/promptitude unequaled in the history of the SC that have gone beyond the limits of
legal and judicial ethics.” Parts of the letter state:
o “Your attention is called to minute-resolution of 9 July 1986 which writes finish to our
case before the Supreme Court (x x x THIS IS FINAL') There is nothing final in this world.
We assure you that this case is far from finished by a long shot For at the proper time,
we shall so act and bring this case before another forum where the members of the Court
can no longer deny our action with minute resolutions that are not only unjust but are
knowingly and deliberately promulgated. x x x
o “Please understand that we are pursuing further remedies in our quest for justice under
the law. In our quest for justice, we wish to avoid doing injustice to anyone, particularly
the members of the First Division, providing that they had no hand in the promulgation
of the resolution in question. That is why we are requesting you to inform us your
participation in the promulgation of these resolutions in question. If, however, we do not
hear from you after a week, then we will consider your silence that you supported the
dismissal of our petition. We will then be guided accordingly.”
4. Ilustre further claimed that the Court acted unjustly when Justice Pedro Yap failed to inhibit
himself from participating when in fact he is a law-partner of the defense counsel Atty Sedfrey
Ordonez.
o However, the Court reviewed the history of the case and found no reason to take action,
stating that Justice Yap inhibited himself from the case and was only designated as
Chairman of First Division after the resolution of dismissal was issued.
5. Illustre again addressed a second batch letters to Justices Narvasa, Herrera and Cruz with a
warning of exposing the case to another forum of justice, to which she made true by filing
an Affidavit-Complaint to Tanodbayan (Ombudsman).
6. Atty. Laureta [counsel of Illustre] reportedly 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.
7. TheTanodbayan however dismissed the complaint.
8. The SC is charging Ilustre with contempt and holding Laureta administratively liable.
9. Ilustre and Laureta claim that the letters were private communication, and that they did not
intend to dishonor the court.

Issues: Ruling
1. W/N Ilustre be held in contempt and should Atty. Laureta be held 1. YES.
administratively liable? 2. NO.
2. W/N there was “vindictive reprisal” on the part of the Supreme Court?
[In other words is the SC maliciously retaliating against respondents?]

Rationale

1. Illustre should be held in contempt and Atty. Laureta should be held administratively
liable.
- Their claims that they had done nothing that could constitute an affront to the honor and
dignity of this Court dissipate in the face of attendant facts and circumstances and "defy
every vestige of human understanding," to use their own language.
- Respondents’ reliance on the "privacy of communication" is misplaced. The letters
addressed to individual Justices in this case, in connection with the performance of their
judicial functions become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire
Court.
- The contumacious character of those letters to the First Division also refer to the Court en
banc, so that the Court en banc could pass upon the judicial acts of the Division.

2
 - It was only in the exercise of forbearance 1 by the Court that it refrained from issuing
immediately a show cause order in the expectancy that after having read the Resolution of
the Court en banc, respondents would realize the unjustness and unfairness of their
accusations.
2. There was no “vindicative reprisal”(malicious retaliation) on the part of the Supreme
Court.
- The Supreme Court's authority and duty to act to preserve its honor from attacks by an irate
lawyer mouthed by his client is clear and non- vindictive.
- The court 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.

The court is not convinced that Atty. Laureta had nothing to do with the letters
- The disparaging remarks like: exertion of "undue" and "powerful influence" by Atty. Ordoñez
and Justice Yap; "distortion of facts, conjectures and mistaken references"; "untenable
minute resolution although extended"; "unjust minute resolution" repeated by Atty. Laureta
in his several pleadings, echoed and reechoed in the individual letters to the Justices, as
well as in the Complaint and the Motion for Reconsideration before the Tandobayan, reveal
the not-too-hidden hand of Atty. Laureta.
- There wera also reports received by the members of the Court that copies of the complaint
filed with the Tanodbayan were distributed to the editors of newspapers in envelopes
bearing the name of respondent Laureta, who was heard over the radio speaking on
the same complaint, and that he was following up the complaint and the motion for
reconsideration of the order of dismissal of the Tanodbayan.
- Laureta violated Canon 16 of the Canons of Legal Ethics. 2
- The theory that only SC may pass upon the justness of its decisions is not a display of
arrogance but an implementation of the rule on separation of powers.
- The Chief Justice's Statement of the supremacy of the Supreme Court's judicial power in this
case is not a "display of arrogance" as contended by respodents, but a restatement of the
fundamental principle of separation of powers and checks and balances.
- The three coequal branches of government, the executive, legislative and judicial, are each
supreme and independent within the limits of its own sphere. Neither one can interfere with
the performance of the duties of the other.
- Litigants cannot be allowed to claim that members of the SC acted in bad faith or rendered
an unjust resolution. To allow this would be to destroy the authenticity, integrity and
conclusiveness of such collegiate acts and resolutions and to disregard utterly the
presumption of regular performance of official duty.
- To allow such collateral attack would destroy the separation of powers and undermine the
role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all justiciable disputes.
- The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield
for contemptuous acts against the Court

Disposition

ACCORDINGLY, the respective Motions for reconsideration of Atty. Wenceslao G. Laureta for the
setting aside of the order suspending him from the practice of law, and of Eva Maravilla Ilustre for the
lifting of the penalty for contempt are DENIED, and this denial is FINAL. Eva Maravilla Ilustre shall pay
the fine of P1,000.00 imposed on her within ten (10) days from notice, or, suffer imprisonment for ten
(10) days upon failure to pay said fine within the stipulated period.

1
refraining from the enforcement of something (
2
Canon 16 of the Canons of Legal Ethics: “(a) lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to
prevent his clients from doing those things which the lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with
reference to their conduct towards courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client
persists in such wrongdoing the lawyer should terminate their relation.' "

3
 SO ORDERED.

NOTES

Full text of the letter:

"Please forgive us for taking the liberty of addressing you this letter which we do hope you will read very
carefully.

"It is important to call your attention to the dismissal of Case No. G.R. 68635 entitled ‘Eva Maravilla Ilustre v. Hon.
Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al., ‘ by an untenable minute-resolution although an extended one, dated 14 May
1986 which we consider as an unjust resolution deliberately and knowingly promulgated by the First Division of the
Supreme Court of which you are a member.

x x x

"We consider the three minute-resolution: the first dated 14 May 1986; the second, dated 9 July 1986; and the
third, 3 September 1986, railroaded with such hurry/promptitude unequalled in the entire history of the Supreme
Court under circumstances that have gone beyond the limits of legal and judicial ethics.

x x x

"Your attention is called to minute-resolution of 9 July 1986 which writes finish to our case before the Supreme
Court (. . . THIS IS FINAL’) There is nothing final in this world. We assure you that this case is far from finished by
a long shot. For at the proper time we shall so act and bring this case before another forum where the members of
the Court can no longer deny our action with minute resolutions that are not only unjust but are knowingly and
deliberately promulgated. The people deserve to know how the members of the highest tribunal of the land
perform in the task of decision making by affixing their respective signatures on judgments that they render on
petitions that they themselves give due course.

"Please understand that we are pursuing further remedies in our quest for justice under the law. We intend to hold
responsible members of the First Division who participated in the promulgation of these three minute-resolutions in
question. For the members thereof cannot claim immunity when their action runs afoul with penal sanctions, even
in the performance of official functions; like others, none of the division members are above the law.

"In our quest for justice, we wish to avoid doing injustice to anyone, particularly the members of the First Division,
providing that they had no hand in the promulgation of the resolution in question. That is why we are requesting
you to inform us your participation in the promulgation of these resolutions in question. Even we who are poor are
also capable of playing fair even to those who take advantage of our poverty by sheer power and influence. We
shall then wait for your reply. If, however, we do not hear from you after a week, then we will consider your silence
that you supported the dismissal of our petition. We will then be guided accordingly. (Emphasis supplied).

The letter also attacked the participation in the case of Justice Pedro L. Yap, Chairman of the First Division in this
wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As Division Chairman, Associate Justice Pedro Yap, as a copy of Resolution dated 14 May 1986 we received
indicate, did not even have the elementary courtesy of putting on record that he voluntarily inhibited himself from
participating in the promulgation of this minute-resolution, although an extended one, which he should have done
consistent with judicial decorum and the Canons of Judicial Ethics. After all he is the law partner of ‘Atty. Sedfrey
A. Ordoñez, counsel for respondents, now the distinguished Solicitor General . . . indicative that even at this stage
of the proceeding in point of time, the Supreme Court still recognizes Atty. Sedfrey A. Ordoñez as counsel for
respondents, even as he is already the Solicitor General. For not withdrawing from the case formally Atty. Ordoñez
has manifested his unmitigated arrogance that he does not respect the Canons of Professional Ethics, similar to
the actuation of his law partner, Associate Justice Pedro Yap, Chairman of the First Division of the Supreme Court,
an act that further aggravates the growing wrinkles in the domain of judicial statesmanship, impressed as it is, with
very serious and dangerous implications.

4
"(9) By 11 April 1986, date of the reorganization of the First Division, Atty. Sedfrey A. Ordoñez already
became the Solicitor General. With such amazingly magical coincidence, Dr. Pedro Yap, law partner of Atty.
Sedfrey A. Ordoñez in the law firm Salonga, Ordoñez, Yap, Padlan became the Chairman of the Division.

x x x

"(11) So we see that on 11 August 1986 to 14 May 1986 when some members of the Division were still busy
putting their respective offices in order and had possibly have no idea about the Maravilla case.

Was it possible for Chairman Yap to have convinced the Division members that Maravilla petition is without merit,
and since the members — the new ones knew nothing about the case, readily agreed to the dismissal of the
petition by a minute-resolution — extended one. After all this was the case of the Solicitor General. If this is what
happened, then we are sorry to say that you were deliberately ‘had.’

After all, the 14 May 1986 untenable minute resolution although an extended one, does not bear the signatures of
the Division members. The members should have signed the resolution, after all, the Supreme Court had given the
petition due course, indicating whether they concur, dissent or otherwise abstain from voting."cralaw virtua1aw
library

The letter to Justice Herrera went on to state.

"We assume, of course, that you had studied the case thoroughly since you were with the original 7-man First
Division under the chairmanship of then Justice Claudio Teehankee. We assure you that we will bring this case
before another forum to hold responsible the members of the Division who participated in the dismissal of the case
by the unjust minute-resolutions, knowingly rendered for intended objective that your conscience you are aware.

x x x

"We leave the next move to you by informing us your participation in the promulgation of the minute-resolutions in
question. Please do not take this matter lightly for we know justice in the end will prevail. For if we do not hear from
you within a week, we will consider your silence as your admission that you supported the dismissal of the petition.
In this way, we shall then be guided accordingly. The moment we take action in the plans we are completing, we
will then call a press conference with TV and radio coverage Arrangements in this regard are being done. The
people should or ought to know why we were thwarted in our quest for plain justice.

x x x

"Finally, in view of action that we are prepared to take in this case, that will no doubt cause nationwide attention,
and there should be anyone that will cause me harm personally, may we request you to show this letter to the
authorities concerned so that they will know where to look, when it becomes necessary." (Emphasis supplied)