G.R. No. L-78926. April 6, 1988.
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. PONCIANO B. JACINTO.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from the conduct of Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto as counsel for Facunda Palmario in a dismissed petition against the Social Security System (SSS). Palmario was considered resigned from the SSS after failing to explain an unauthorized absence. Her petition questioning this before the Supreme Court was denied in 1984 for lack of merit, and a subsequent petition to reopen was dismissed in 1987, with a motion for reconsideration denied with finality. Despite these final dismissals, Atty. Jacinto filed a series of subsequent motions, including a “Special and Very Urgent Manifestation” and a “Final Plea for the Integrity of the Honorable Supreme Court.”
The Court found the merits of the underlying case clear, noting Palmario had been afforded due process before the Civil Service Commission and that any claim of new evidence should have been presented there, not to the Supreme Court. The Court’s serious concern, however, was directed at the language and tone employed by Atty. Jacinto in his later pleadings, which prompted this motu proprio disciplinary action.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto’s language and conduct in his pleadings before the Supreme Court constitute contemptuous behavior warranting disciplinary sanction.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Jacinto from the practice of law. The ruling emphasizes that while zealous advocacy and criticism of judicial conduct are permitted, lawyers must always observe propriety, good taste, and respect for the courts. Atty. Jacinto’s pleadings crossed this line. His statements, made while professing respect for the Court, were deemed contemptuous, insolent, and threatening. He warned the Court of a “looming danger ahead,” suggested that denying his petition would render the Court as superfluous as “a hole in the head,” broadly hinted at releasing “nauseating” news to the media, and made irresponsible charges that undermined the tribunal’s integrity.
The legal logic is grounded in the lawyer’s duty as an officer of the court to uphold its dignity and authority. Such conduct demonstrates a contemptuous disregard for the judiciary, which cannot be tolerated as it erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court, citing In re Almacen, held that by his own actions, Atty. Jacinto demonstrated unfitness to remain a member of the bar. Suspension was imposed to instill discipline and to serve as a rehabilitative measure outside the legal profession until he proves himself worthy of reinstatement. The resolution is immediately executory.