GR 174759; (September, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174759 ; September 7, 2011
DENIS B. HABAWEL and ALEXIS F. MEDINA, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, FIRST DIVISION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F. Medina, attorneys from the Ponce Enrile Reyes and Manalastas Law Offices, were counsel for Surfield Development Corporation (Surfield) in a claim for refund of excess realty taxes. After the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Surfield’s petition for mandamus, petitioners appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division. The CTA First Division denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners used language stating it was “gross ignorance of the law for the Honorable Court to have held that it has no jurisdiction” and that the court “lacked the understanding and respect for the doctrine of ‘stare decisis.'” The CTA First Division, in denying the motion, required petitioners to explain why they should not be held for indirect contempt or disciplinary action. In their Compliance, petitioners apologized but justified their language as necessary “to bluntly call the Honorable Court’s attention to the grievousness of the error by calling a spade a spade.” The CTA First Division found the apology insincere and, in a Resolution dated May 16, 2006, adjudged petitioners guilty of DIRECT CONTEMPT, sentencing each to imprisonment for ten (10) days and a fine of ₱2,000.00. Their Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated July 26, 2006. Petitioners assail these resolutions via certiorari, claiming grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the CTA First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioners guilty of direct contempt and imposing penalties of imprisonment and a fine based on the language used in their Motion for Reconsideration and Compliance.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the resolutions of the CTA First Division. The Court held that the CTA First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The language used by petitioners in their Motion for Reconsideration—specifically accusing the court of “gross ignorance of the law” and lacking “understanding and respect for the doctrine of stare decisis”—was derogatory, offensive, and disrespectful, constituting direct contempt. Their subsequent Compliance, which reiterated and justified the accusations, compounded the disrespect. Lawyers have a duty to observe respect toward the courts and to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. The statements were not mere vigorous advocacy but were intemperate, abusive, and scandalous, tending to bring the court’s authority and administration of justice into disrepute. The penalties imposed were within the court’s authority under the Rules of Court for direct contempt. The Court emphasized that an apology, to mitigate liability, must be sincere and not coupled with a reiteration of the offensive remarks.