Criticisms against the courts and judges

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law Foundation
2018-2019

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND
TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY
IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE
COURT.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party.

Duty of Lawyers

As part of the machinery for the administration of justice, a lawyer is expected to bring to the fore
irregular and questionable practices of those sitting in court which tend to corrode the judicial
machinery. Thus, if he acquired reliable information that anomalies are perpetrated by judicial officers, it is
incumbent upon him to report the matter to the Court so that it may be properly acted upon. An omission
or even a delay in reporting may tend to erode the dignity of, and the public’s trust in, the judicial system. –
Fudot v. Cattleyla Land, Inc., G.R. No. 171008 October 24, 2008

Requirements when raising grievances against judges

The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide
for the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must
always be maintained. - In re: Atty. Bagabuyo A.C. No. 7006 [2007]

A scurrilous attack

We recall his use of the following words and phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous
mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial process. –
Judge Lacurom v. Atty. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006

Offensive language

They unfairly called the Court of Appeals a “court of technicalities” for validly dismissing their defectively
prepared petition.
They also accused the Court of Appeals of protecting, in their view, “an incompetent judge.”
The Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the case shows its“impatience and readiness to punish petitioners
for a perceived slight on its dignity” and such dismissal“smacks of retaliation and does not augur

1
for the cold neutrality and impartiality demanded of the appellate court.”- Asean Pacific Planners et.
al. v. City of Urdaneta et. al., G.R. No. 162525 [2008]

Intemperate language

• His characterization of the decision of the respondent Judge as having been "crafted in order to fool
the winning party"; as a "hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs' favor"; one "you could have sworn
it was the Devil who dictated it"; or one with "perfidious character," although the petitioners as
plaintiffs therein and who were the prevailing party in the decision did not appeal therefrom; and by
his charge that the respondent Judge was "a bit confused — with that confusion which is the
natural product of having been born, nurtured and brought up amongst the crowded
surroundings of the non-propertied class.
- Sps. Tiongco v. Hon. Aguilar, G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995

Foul language

The loathsome epithets hurled by the complainant against the respondent justices, e.g., "Crooks in Robe,"
"Swindlers in Robe," "corrupt justices who were only sowing ‘judicial terrorism,’" as well as his
vilification of the Chief Justice whom he called "Chief-Swindler-in-Robe," go beyond the bounds of
acceptable behavior. – Complaint of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda against Justices, A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC,
June 9, 2005

Proscribed language

• Proscribed then are, inter alia:

1. the use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or
promotes distrust in judicial administration or
2. tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the members
of this Court and to degrade the administration of justice by this Court of offensive and
abusive language or
3. abrasive and offensive language or
4. of disrespectful, offensive, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements in pleadings or in a
letter addressed to the judge or
5. of disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-for remarks.
- Sps. Tiongco v. Hon. Aguilar, G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995

Not disrespectful, abusive or slanderous

We cannot say that the use of the adjective "insufficiently-informed" is disrespectful, abusive or slanderous.
– Francisco, Jr. v. UEM-MARA Phil. Corp., et. al., G.R. Nos. 135688-89, October 18, 2007

Constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity

“A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six
years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be
questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof.”- Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution

Purpose of parliamentary immunity

Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every
legislative assembly of the democratic world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose “is to enable and

2
encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success” for “it is
indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and that he should be
protected from resentment of every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty
may occasion offense.”

Defensor-Santiago case

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on the Senate floor:

x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am
humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years
in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his
cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be
surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x
x. - Pobre v. Sen. Defensor-Santiago A.C. No. 7399 [2009]

The purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open controversial anomalies in
governance with a view to future remedial legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose what she
believed “to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC],” which, after sending out public invitations
for nomination to the soon to-be vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants
that only incumbent justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt that the
JBC should have at least given an advanced advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would
not be considered for the position of Chief Justice.

• No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due to the courts should be allowed
to erode the people’s faith in the judiciary. In this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule
8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide:

Canon 8, Rule 8.01.––A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.

Canon 11.––A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

Case against Sen. Defensor-Santiago dismissed

• Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under
the Rules of Court.

• In this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

• WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-

Santiago is, conformably to Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, DISMISSED.

Statements of an accused lawyer

• Ed J. Polk was arrested and jailed and his bond revoked because of his failure to appear for a criminal
trial wherein he was charged as a defendant with driving while intoxicated. Upon his release from jail
Polk issued to the news media from his law office the following written statement:
I consider this one more awkward attempt by a dishonest and unethical district attorney and a
perverse judge to assure me an unfair trial.

3
 Questionable conduct on the part of those charged with administration of justice does little to
foster respect for the law.
- Polk v. State Bar of Texas 374 F. Supp. 784 [1974]

Statements were made as a citizen

The critical statements made by Polk were remarks in response to the manner in which he was treated
as a citizen and not as an attorney. At no time was Polk an attorney of record or in any way acting in
his capacity as an attorney in the criminal proceedings against him, nor do the remarks purport to be
made in his capacity as an attorney. - Polk v. State Bar of Texas 374 F. Supp. 784 [1974]

There is no dichotomy of a lawyer’s personality

There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or
in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time
and a mere citizen at another. – Cojuangco, Jr. v. Atty. Palma, Adm. Case No. 2474, September 15, 2004

Violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11

Judge claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No.
2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge advised him to tone down his voice
but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for
direct contempt, the respondent shouted, “Then cite me!”. Judge cited him for direct contempt and
imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left.
While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, “Judge, I will
file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! Judge ordered the sheriff to escort the
respondent out of the courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court for the second time.

Con’t…

A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and position
in our justice system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi
that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted
in a manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi’s competence and in his ability
to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be handled with sensitivity in the
manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner
that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute. – Judge Baculi v. Atty.
Battung, A.C. no. 8920, September 28, 2011

Intention and disclaimer not a defense

Atty. Abila's central theme in his written explanation is that he acted in good faith and was merely
motivated by his duty to defend the interest of his client. His disclaimer of any intentional disrespect is
not a ground for exoneration. His intent must be determined by a fair interpretation of the language
employed by him. He cannot escape responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any reader
must have understood them to mean. – Borromeo v. CA, G.R. No. L-39253 November 24, 1978

Making threats

In addition, he likewise committed a violation of Canon 11 of Rule 11.03 by threatening respondent judge
that if his motions were not granted, respondent judge would be administratively charged. To be sure,

4
the threat made against respondent judge was not a threat to do him bodily harm. Nonetheless, it was a
threat. Needless to say, disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language, offensive personalities, unfounded
accusations, or intemperate words tending to obstruct, embarrass, or influence the court in administering
justice or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. – Prosecutor Tolentino v. Judge Cabral, A.M.
No. RTJ-00-1528, March 28, 2000

Threat of Impeachment

• It is reprehensible for the complainant to threaten the members of the Court with impeachment. To
threaten a judge or justice with investigation and prosecution for official acts done by him in the
regular exercise of official duty subverts and undermines the independence of the judiciary.
- Complaint of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda against Justices, A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC, June 9, 2005

Offensive language against complainant proscribed

Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing
complainant and her relatives. A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The lawyer’s
arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be
of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling complainant, a "sly
manipulator of truth" as well as a "vindictive congenital prevaricator", hardly measures to the sobriety
of speech demanded of a lawyer. – N.H. Florido v. Atty. Florido, A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004

Statements in form of questions still proscribed

While most of her statements were in the form of questions instead of categorical assertions, the
effect is still the same: they constitute a stinging affront to the honor and dignity of the Court and tend to
undermine the confidence of the public in the integrity of the highest tribunal of the land.

She posed the query, "Nasaan ang katarungan? (Where is justice?)," implying that this Court failed to
dispense justice in her case. - Bildner and Ilusorio v. Ilusorio, et. al., G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009

Direct contempt if submitted in the same court

In Ang vs. Castro, this Court held that if a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and malicious
statements is submitted in the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is
direct contempt, equivalent as it is to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court
or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. Direct contempt is punishable summarily. - Re: Letter
dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda, A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC. July 22, 2005]

Post litigation criticisms

The Philippine rule, therefore, is that in case of a post-litigation newspaper publication, fair criticism of the
court, its proceedings and its members, are allowed. However, there may be a contempt of court, even though
the case has been terminated, if the publication is attended by either of these two circumstances: (1) where it
tends to bring the court into disrespect or, in other words, to scandalize the court; or (2) where there is a
clear and present danger that the administration of justice would be impeded. – PP v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-
09 March 29, 1995

5
Contempt and Disciplinary proceeding are not the same

A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in court is designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the
other hand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to deal with the fitness of the court's officer to
continue in that office, to preserve and protect the court and the public from the official
ministrations of persons unfit or unworthy to hold such office. The principal purpose of the exercise of
the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court and should thus be used sparingly
on a preservative and not, on the vindictive principle. The principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary
authority by the Supreme Court is to assure respect for orders of such court by attorneys who, as
much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice.

Con’t…

Moreover, it has been held that the imposition a fine as a penalty in a contempt proceeding is not considered
res judicata to a subsequent charge for unprofessional conduct. In the same manner an attorney's conviction
for contempt was not collaterally estopped by reason of a subsequent disbarment proceeding in which
the court found in his favor on essentially the same facts leading to conviction. It has likewise been the rule
that a notice to a lawyer to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt cannot be
considered as a notice to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law,
considering that they have distinct objects and for each of them a different procedure is established.
Contempt of court is governed by the procedures laid down under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,
whereas disciplinary actions in the Practice of law are governed by file 138 and 139 thereof. - PP v.
Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09 March 29, 1995

The test of allowable criticisms of a judge’s decision

Whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency
and propriety. – Lorenzo Shipping Corp., et. al. v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, et.
al., G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011

Degree of lawyers’ remark or comment

Undoubtedly, lawyers should be allowed some latitude of remark or comment in the furtherance of causes
they uphold. For the felicity of their clients they may be pardoned some infelicities of phrase. – In re:
Complaint against Atty. Pilar, A.C. No. 263, October 28, 1958

Is the judiciary onion-skinned?

“The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism
wrongly appraises the character of …. public opinion. For it is a prized …. privilege to speak one's mind,
although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however
limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment,
suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.”- Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270-
271 (1941)
Admonition to judges

• More than once in the past, we had occasion to admonish judges not to be onion-skinned when
confronted by dissatisfied lawyers or litigants. Their power to punish for contempt is not a bludgeon
to be used for the purpose of exacting silent submission to their rulings and orders however
questionable or unjust they may be. - Sesbreño v. Judge Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-272 February 6, 1990

6
Free speech in democratic government

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit
the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.“ - Texas v
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989)

Limited freedom of expression?

“It cannot be seriously asserted that a private citizen surrenders his right to freedom of expression when he
becomes a licensed attorney in this state. The Supreme Court has built a substantial line of cases where the
Constitution has been read to limit and restrain the state's power to prescribe standards of conduct for
attorneys.” - Polk v. State Bar of Texas 374 F. Supp. 784 [1974]

Duty to defend judges and justices

Indeed, it is the attorneys duty as an officer of the court to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or
groundless personal attack. This requires of him not only to refrain from subjecting the judge to wild and
groundless accusation but also to discourage other people from so doing and to come to his defense
when he is so subjected. By the very nature of his position a judge lacks the power, outside of his court, to
defend himself against unfounded criticism and clamor and it is the attorney, and no other, who can better
or more appropriately support the judiciary and the incumbents of the judicial positions. – Johnny Ng v.
Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Adm. Case No. 7252, November 22, 2006
No special privilege for labor practitioners
Respondents argument that labor practitioners are entitled to some latitude of righteous anger is
unavailing. – Johnny Ng v. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Adm. Case No. 7252, November 22, 2006

Thank you for your attention!!