G.R. No. L-14277. April 30, 1960.
MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. ELOY B. BELLO, Judge Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez filed a petition for certiorari to annul two orders (June 16 and July 29, 1958) issued by respondent Judge Eloy B. Bello in Special Proceedings No. 3931, a guardianship case over minors Federico and Pedro Perreyras. The first order reprimanded Fernandez for improper conduct, ordered him to return P200 to the guardian within 15 days, and forwarded the matter to the Supreme Court for disciplinary action. The second order denied his motion for reconsideration and warned him against using improper terms in pleadings.
The proceedings arose from the sale of a nipa land owned by the wards and their sister, Timotea Perreyras (the guardian), which was authorized by the court to pay obligations to Maximiano Umañgay. The land had previously been sold with a right to repurchase by the wards’ deceased father to Ricardo Perreyras and Umañgay, whose interests were later assigned to Atty. Fernandez for P200. From the P1,000 sale proceeds, P200 was paid to Fernandez as redemption price for the land (as assignee of the credit), and another P200 was paid to him for legal services rendered to the deceased father in a prior civil case. These payments were made without prior court approval.
Upon taking over the case, Judge Bello required the guardian to account for the wards’ property. After hearings, the court exonerated the guardian of contempt but disapproved all unauthorized payments, including those to Fernandez. The court charged Fernandez with abusing his relationship with the guardian and taking money without court approval. Fernandez admitted receiving P400 but argued he was no longer the guardian’s counsel at the time, acted in good faith, and had only received P50 for his services in the guardianship. The court found him guilty of contempt for taking the P400 without approval and for allegedly instituting the guardianship solely to collect his fees from the father’s debt.

ISSUE

1. Whether the proceedings against Fernandez were irregular due to the lack of a formal charge.
2. Whether the court’s findings and orders (reprimand, refund order, and disciplinary referral) were justified.

RULING

1. The proceedings were not irregular. The court motu proprio preferred charges in its orders, and Fernandez was duly notified and given an opportunity to answer in writing. Compliance with legal requirements is satisfied by a written charge filed in court and an opportunity to be heard, regardless of whether it is initiated by a prosecuting officer, the judge, or a private person.
2. The court’s orders are partially modified.
– On the contempt finding for instituting guardianship to facilitate debt payment: The Supreme Court reversed this finding. The guardianship was a proper remedy to sell the nipa land and settle the wards’ debt, as the minors could not sell it alone. Previous judges had approved the guardianship and sale, and there was no evidence of bad faith.
– On the contempt finding for taking money without court approval: The reprimand was justified. Fernandez, as a lawyer, knew the wards’ property was in custodia legis and could not be used without court permission, especially for a debt of the deceased father.
– On the order to refund P200 and denial of fees: This portion was modified. While the reprimand for unauthorized taking was proper, the court could not lawfully deny Fernandez his rightful fees for services rendered to the deceased father, which were admitted by the guardian. The order to return P200 is without prejudice to Fernandez’s right to demand payment from the proceeds of the deceased father’s estate.
– On the language used in pleadings: The strong language in Fernandez’s motion was provoked by the judge’s own “insulting remarks” in the orders (e.g., describing acts as “anomalous and unbecoming”). A judge should use temperate language to avoid such reactions.
The Supreme Court modified the orders accordingly, without costs.