G.R. No. L-22979 June 26, 1967
RHEEM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. ZOILO R. FERRER, ET AL., respondents. IN RE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE, LEONARDO SIGUION REYNA, MANUEL G. MONTECILLO, ENRIQUE M. BELO, OSCAR R. ONGSIAKO, and JOSE S. ARMONIO, members of the Philippine Bar.

FACTS

This is a contempt proceeding arising from a motion for reconsideration filed by counsel for the petitioners. The motion contained language that the Court found disrespectful. Specifically, it stated that the Court had “repeatedly fallen” into a “pitfall” by relying on its own pronouncements on the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations without regard to the statutes, thereby perpetuating errors. It also referred sarcastically to the “so-called ‘rule against splitting of jurisdiction.'” The Court issued an order for the counsel to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. In their verified return, the respondent attorneys, including partners of the law firm and associate Atty. Jose S. Armonio, offered sincere apologies, explaining that the language was the result of Atty. Armonio’s “overenthusiasm” and emotional involvement in the case, and was not intended to be disrespectful. The partners assumed full responsibility but explained that the motion was prepared, signed, and filed by Atty. Armonio without being cleared by any of them due to time constraints.

ISSUE

Whether the language used by the respondent attorneys in their motion for reconsideration constitutes contempt of court.

RULING

Yes, the language used constitutes contempt. The Court found the statements to be disrespectful, as they implied the Court was “patently inept,” committed and perpetuated errors, and refused to follow the law, thereby detracting from the Court’s dignity and respect. The Court emphasized the duty of lawyers under Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the Canons of Legal Ethics to maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts. While the Court accepted the apology and lack of malicious intent, it held that want of intention does not excuse the language, as counsel cannot escape responsibility for the clear meaning of their words. The partners’ failure to exercise adequate supervision over pleadings was also noted. Atty. Jose S. Armonio was admonished with a warning, and a copy of the resolution was ordered attached to his record. The partners—Attys. Alfonso Ponce Enrile, Leonardo Siguion Reyna, Manuel G. Montecillo, Enrique M. Belo, and Oscar R. Ongsiako—were reminded of the necessity to exercise adequate supervision and control over court submissions.