G.R. No. L-14277. April 30, 1960.
MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. ELOY B. BELLO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez filed a petition for certiorari to annul two orders issued by respondent Judge Eloy B. Bello in Special Proceedings No. 3931 (Guardianship of the Minors Federico and Pedro Perreyras). The first order, dated June 16, 1958, reprimanded Fernandez for improper conduct as counsel, ordered him to return P200.00 collected from the guardian, and forwarded the order to the Supreme Court for disciplinary action. The second order, dated July 29, 1958, denied his motion for reconsideration and warned him against using improper terms in pleadings.
The proceedings involved Timotea Perreyras, appointed guardian of her minor brothers. With court approval, she sold a nipa land for P1,000 to settle debts owed to Maximiano Umañgay. The land had previously been sold with right to repurchase by the minors’ father to Ricardo Perreyras and Umañgay, whose interests were later assigned to Fernandez for P200.00. From the P1,000 proceeds, P200.00 was paid to Fernandez as redemption price for the land (as assignee of the credit), and another P200.00 was paid to him for legal services rendered to the minors’ deceased father in a prior civil case. These payments were made without prior court approval.
Upon investigation, Judge Bello found Fernandez guilty of contempt for taking P400.00 from the sale proceeds without court authority and criticized his conduct as “anomalous,” alleging the guardianship was instituted merely to facilitate payment of the father’s debt. Fernandez argued he was no longer the guardian’s counsel when paid, acted in good faith, and that the guardianship was a less expensive alternative to intestate proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders reprimanding Fernandez, ordering the return of P200.00, and denying his motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the respondent judge’s orders.
1. On Procedural Regularity: The Court held the proceedings were regular. The judge motu proprio preferred charges in writing, and Fernandez was given an opportunity to answer, complying with legal requirements for contempt proceedings.
2. On the Finding of Contempt for Instituting Guardianship: The Court reversed the finding that Fernandez instituted guardianship solely to collect the father’s debt. Evidence showed the minors owed P200.00, and sale of the land was necessary to pay it, requiring a guardian. Previous judges had approved the guardianship and sale, and there was no evidence of bad faith.
3. On the Reprimand and Order to Return P200.00: The Court upheld the reprimand. Fernandez, as a lawyer, knew the wards’ property was in custodia legis and could not be used without court approval. However, the order to return the P200.00 paid for legal services to the deceased father was unjustified. While the reprimand for taking the money without approval was proper, it did not negate Fernandez’s right to collect lawful fees for services rendered. The Court modified this portion, stating the return of P200.00 should be without prejudice to Fernandez’s right to demand payment from the deceased father’s estate.
4. On the Use of Strong Language: The Court noted the judge’s own use of strong language (e.g., “anomalous and unbecoming”) provoked Fernandez’s impassioned response. A judge should use temperate language to avoid such reactions.
The orders were modified accordingly, without costs.