G.R. No. 84032 . August 29, 1989.
ATTY. ELADIO CH. RUBIO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Eladio Ch. Rubio was adjudged guilty of direct contempt by Judge Martin P. Badong of the RTC of Albay and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. This stemmed from his “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion” in an estate proceeding, wherein he accused Judge Badong of the crime of falsification, gross misconduct, and violating his lawyer’s oath for appointing a certain administrator, demanding the judge’s disbarment. Attached was a copy of a draft certiorari petition with a marginal note threatening its filing unless the order was rectified. When ordered to show cause, Rubio filed a compliance reiterating the accusations in venomous language without apology, leading to the contempt citation.
Rubio challenged the contempt order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition, ruling certiorari was improper and noting the judge had rectified the earlier order. Unsatisfied, Rubio elevated the case to the Supreme Court. In his petition here, he directed similarly scandalous and abusive language against the three Court of Appeals Justices who decided his case, accusing them of the crime of falsification, intentional falsehoods, serious misconduct worse than a dismissed judge, and demanding their dishonorable dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in denying the petition for certiorari, and whether Atty. Rubio’s conduct warrants disciplinary action.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court correctly held that certiorari was not the proper remedy against a direct contempt order, which is immediately executory and not appealable until the main case is terminated. Moreover, the record showed the trial judge had already corrected the alleged error.
However, the Court focused on Rubio’s deplorable conduct. His pleadings, replete with scurrilous, offensive, and capitalized language, demonstrated gross disrespect and malice towards both the trial judge and the appellate justices. While lawyers must defend their clients’ rights with vigor, they are prohibited from using threatening, abusive, or intimidating language. Accusing judges of personal crimes like falsification and misconduct, without basis and with obvious spite, violates the decorum and courtesy required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such behavior undermines judicial integrity and the administration of justice.
The Court found the evidence from Rubio’s own verified pleadings sufficient to establish his grossly improper conduct without further proceedings. His arrogant and insolent attitude showed he lacked the respect fundamental to the legal profession. Consequently, to uphold the dignity of the courts and the Bar, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Eladio Ch. Rubio from the practice of law until further order, directing this resolution be entered in his personal record.