GR 113591; (February, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995
AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, through counsel Atty. Mario G. Fortes, filed a petition for review which was denied by the Supreme Court in a resolution dated May 11, 1994. Atty. Fortes filed a motion for reconsideration, contending the denial was based on technicality, disregarded the purpose of judicial proceedings to seek the truth, and upheld a fake title. He further insinuated the Court did not read the petition or refused to understand it to avoid blurring a preconceived resolution. The Supreme Court, in a July 13, 1994 resolution, denied the motion with finality and directed Atty. Fortes to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his malicious and unfounded accusations and for craftily suppressing from the petition the fact of a final decision in a related case, CA-G.R. CR No. 11465. In his compliance, Atty. Fortes admitted the charge, offered explanations and apologies, and asserted his statements were made without malice, motivated by enthusiasm to protect his clients.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Mario G. Fortes is guilty of contempt and misconduct for making unfounded and malicious accusations against the Supreme Court and for suppressing material facts in the petition.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Mario G. Fortes is guilty of contempt and misconduct. The Supreme Court found his assertions in the motion for reconsideration to be patently unfounded and malicious. The petition was not dismissed on a technicality but after a careful reading, and the Court concluded petitioners failed to show any reversible error. Atty. Fortes suppressed the vital fact that the decision petitioners sought to annul in CA-G.R. SP No. 30319 was the same decision already affirmed with finality by a co-equal division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 11465. His accusations disrespected the Court, diminished public confidence, and assailed the integrity of its Members. His explanations of being a first-time filer and acting out of enthusiasm for his clients’ interests were unacceptable. He violated his oath, Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Atty. Mario G. Fortes was ordered to pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and warned that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.