ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
JOSE D.
SANGALANG and LUTGARDA D. SANGALANG,
FELIX
C. GASTON and DOLORES R. GASTON,
G. R. No. 71169 August 30, 1989 -versus-INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT and AYALA
CORPORATION,
________________________________________________________
BEL-AIR
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
G. R. No. 74376 August 30, 1989 -versus-INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ROSARIO DE
JESUS
TENORIO,
____________________________________________________________
BEL-AIR
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
G. R. No. 76394 August 30, 1989 -versus-COURT
OF APPEALS and EDUARDO and BUENA
ROMUALDEZ,
____________________________________________________________
BEL-AIR
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
G. R. No. 78182 August 30, 1989 -versus-COURT
OF APPEALS, DOLORES FILLEY
______________________________________
BEL-AIR
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
G. R. No. 82281 August 30, 1989 -versus-COURT
OF APPEALS, VIOLETA MONCAL,
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]. On February 2, 1989, the Court issued a Resolution, requiring, among other things, Atty. Sangco to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt "for using intemperate and accusatory language."[1] On March 2, 1989, Atty. Sangco filed an explanation. The Court finds Atty. Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration, reproduced as follows:
As a former judge, Atty. Sangco also has to be aware that We are not bound by the findings of the trial court [in which his clients prevailed]. But if We did not agree with the findings of the court a quo, it does not follow that We had acted arbitrarily because, precisely, it is the office of an appeal to review the findings of the inferior court.cralaw:red To be sure, Atty. Sangco is entitled to his opinion, but not to a license to insult the Court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta ad hominem. In that event, it is the Court's duty "to act to preserve the honor and dignity and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession."[9] We are not satisfied with his explanation that he was merely defending the interests of his clients. As We held in Laureta, a lawyer's "first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to, and must always be, scrupulously observant of law and ethics."[10] And while a lawyer must advocate his client's cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo.cralaw:red That "the questions propounded were not meant or intended to accuse but to challenge the thinking in the decision,[11] comes as an eleventh-hour effort to cleanse what is in fact and plainly, an unfounded accusation. Certainly, it is the prerogative of an unsuccessful party to ask for reconsideration, but as We held in Laureta, litigants should not "think that they will win a hearing by the sheer multiplication of words."[12] As We indicated [see Decision denying the Motions for Reconsideration in G. R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281, and deciding G. R. No. 60727 dated August 25, 1989], the movants have raised no new arguments to warrant reconsideration and they cannot veil that fact with inflammatory language.cralaw:red Atty. Sangco
himself admits that "as a judge,
I have learned to live with and accept with grace criticisms of my
decisions."[13]
Apparently, he does not practice what he preaches. Of course, the Court
is not unreceptive to comment and critique of its decisions, but
provided
they are fair and dignified. Atty. Sangco has transcended the limits of
fair comment for which he deserves this Court's rebuke.
Rule 11.02.
WHEREFORE Atty. J. Cezar Sangco is [1] suspended from the practice of law for three [3] months effective from receipt hereof, and [2] ordered to pay a fine of P 500.00 payable from receipt hereof. Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in his record.cralaw:red IT IS SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Fernan, C.J.,
Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Griño-Aquino,
Medialdea,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.
____________________________________
[1]
Rollo; G. R. No. 71169, 410.
[3]
Id.
|
|