G.R. No. 171008, October 24, 2008
Carmelita Fudot, petitioner, vs. Cattleya Land, Inc., respondent.

FACTS

The Supreme Court initiated a charge of indirect contempt motu proprio against Atty. Victor De La Serna. This arose from a request for inhibition filed by Atty. De La Serna against Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, who was the ponente in the case of Carmelita Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc. In his pleading, Atty. De La Serna alleged that a certain Mr. Johnny Chan, who had an interest in purchasing property related to the case, claimed to have given Ten Million Pesos (₱10,000,000.00) to Justice Tinga in exchange for a favorable decision. Atty. De La Serna supported this allegation by recounting meetings with Mr. Chan and his lawyer, Atty. Paulino Petralba, regarding a potential amicable settlement. He further claimed that Atty. Petralba had advance knowledge of the Court’s decision, which he argued confirmed the bribery. Atty. De La Serna also contended that the decision was inconsistent with principles Justice Tinga himself had enunciated in a prior case (Lim v. Jorge) and that the relatively swift resolution of the case compared to others pending before the Court was suspicious. The Court required Atty. De La Serna to explain why he should not be punished for contempt. A hearing was conducted where Atty. De La Serna, his son, Mr. Chan, and Atty. Petralba testified. Mr. Chan and Atty. Petralba denied the allegations of bribery. Mr. Chan admitted to meetings to discuss settlement and offering Atty. De La Serna a retainer but denied mentioning any bribery. Atty. Petralba presented his diary to clarify the timeline of meetings and stated his conversation with Atty. De La Serna, Jr. was a chance encounter where he only said the client wanted another meeting “baka sakali there will be a favorable result.”

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Victor De La Serna is guilty of indirect contempt for making allegations of bribery against a Supreme Court Justice without sufficient evidence and using intemperate and scandalous language in his pleadings.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Victor De La Serna is guilty of indirect contempt. The Court found that his allegations of bribery were baseless and unsupported by any credible evidence. His reliance on hearsay statements from Mr. Chan, which were later denied under oath, was insufficient and reckless. The Court held that the speed of a case’s resolution does not imply impropriety, as the Court has discretion in prioritizing cases. Furthermore, Atty. De La Serna’s use of scandalous language, such as describing the decision as a “ROGUE DECISION” and stating “like a ‘mad dog, it should be slain at sight,'” constituted improper conduct that degraded the administration of justice. His actions were deemed to impede, obstruct, and degrade the authority of the Court. The Court emphasized the duty of lawyers to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and the judiciary. Atty. De La Serna was found guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and was fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00), with a warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.