G.R. No. L-43757 July 30, 1976
Regino Gabriel and Jaime Tapel, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, and The People of the Philippines, respondents. In re: Contempt citation against Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Regino Gabriel and Jaime Tapel were convicted of theft by the Manila court of first instance, a judgment affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals on November 28, 1975. Through another lawyer, Atty. Rodolfo D. Mapile, the petitioners filed their first petition for review before the Supreme Court on March 6, 1976. This petition was denied for lack of merit in a resolution dated March 15, 1976, and final judgment was entered on May 10, 1976. Subsequently, on May 31, 1976, a second petition for review of the very same Court of Appeals decision was filed on behalf of the same petitioners, this time through Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza. The Supreme Court, in its resolution of June 11, 1976, denied this second petition for lack of merit and required Atty. Orteza to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for filing a second petition after a final judgment had already been rendered.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza is guilty of contempt of court for filing a second petition for review on behalf of the same petitioners after the denial of a first petition had become final and executory.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Cornelio M. Orteza is guilty of contempt of court. The Supreme Court found his explanation—that the first petition was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 while the second was a petition for review under Rule 45—to be manifestly unsatisfactory. The legal logic is clear and elementary: a party cannot split its appeal by filing multiple petitions aimed at overturning the same final judgment. The substance of both petitions was identical—to set aside the Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction—regardless of their procedural labels. The entry of final judgment on May 10, 1976, rendered the matter conclusively settled.
Such conduct constitutes an abuse of the court’s processes, tends to impede, obstruct, and degrade the administration of justice, and is punishable as contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(c) and (d). It also violates a lawyer’s duty under Rule 138, Section 20 to maintain only such actions as are just and consistent with truth and honor. The Court emphasized its prior warnings against this very tactic of filing sequential petitions under different guises to circumvent finality and trifle with judicial proceedings. Consequently, Atty. Orteza was fined Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00), with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was ordered expunged from the records as a sham pleading.