WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Attorneys Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F. Medina of the Ponce Enrile Reyes and Manalastas Law Offices guilty of DIRECT CONTEMPT. Each counsel is
hereby ORDERED TO PAY a fine of Two Thousand Pesos and to SUFFER IMPRISONMENT for a period of ten (10) days.
SO ORDERED.2
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. And insofar as the merits of the case are concerned let this Resolution be considered as the final decision on the matter.
However, this Court finds the statements of petitioner's counsel that "it is gross ignorance of the law for the Honorable Court to have held that it has no jurisdiction over this instant petition; the grossness of this Honorable Court's ignorance of the law is matched only by the unequivocal expression of this Honorable Court's jurisdiction over the instant case" and "this Court lacked the understanding and respect for the doctrine of "stare decisis" as derogatory, offensive and disrespectful. Lawyers are charged with the basic duty to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;" they vow solemnly to conduct themselves "with all good fidelity...to the courts." As a matter of fact, the first canon of legal ethics enjoins them "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its superior importance." Therefore, petitioner's counsel is hereby ORDERED to explain within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution why he should not be held for indirect contempt and/or subject to disciplinary action.
SO ORDERED.15
In their Compliance, the Court finds no sincerity and humility when counsels Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F. Medina asked for apology. In fact, the counsels brazenly pointed the Court's alleged ignorance and grave abuse of discretion. Their chosen words are so strong, which brings disrepute the Court's honor and integrity. We quote:a) "Admittedly, the language of the Motion for Reconsideration was not endearing. However, the undersigned counsel found it necessary to bluntly call the Honorable Court's attention to the grievousness of the error by calling a spade a spade. The advocacy needed a strong articulation of the gravity of the error of the Honorable Court in avoiding the substantial and transcendental issues by the simple expedient of dismissing the petition for alleged lack of jurisdiction, in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires that the Decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the Decision was based" (par. 3 of the Compliance; docket, p. 349);
b) "Since the Honorable Court simply quoted Section 7(a)(5) and it totally ignored Section 7(a)(3), to perfunctorily find that "(U)ndoubtedly, appeals of the decisions or rulings of the Regional Trial Court concerning real property taxes evidently do not fall within the jurisdiction of the CTA," the undersigned counsel formed a perception that the Honorable Court was totally unaware or ignorant of the new provision, Section 7(a)(3). Hence, the statements that it was gross ignorance of the law for the Honorable Court to have held that it has not [sic] jurisdiction, as well as, the grossness of the Honorable Court's ignorance of the law is matched only by the unequivocal expression of this Honorable Court's jurisdiction over the instant case were an honest and frank articulation of undersigned counsel's perception that was influenced by its failure to understand why the Honorable Court totally ignored Section 7(a)(3) in ruling on its lack of jurisdiction" (par. 10 of the Compliance; docket, p. 353);18
The tone of an irate lawyer would almost always reveal the sarcasm in the phrases used. The scurrilous attacks made in the guise of pointing out errors of judgment almost always result to the destruction of the high esteem and regard towards the Court.21
WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Each counsel is hereby ORDERED TO PAY a fine of Two Thousand Pesos and to SUFFER IMPRISONMENT for a period of ten (10) days.
SO, ORDERED.22
I
THE PETITIONERS' LANGUAGE IN THE SUBJECT MOTION AND COMPLIANCE WAS CONTUMACIOUS;II THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT SINCERE IN THEIR APOLOGY AND WERE ARROGANT;III
THE EXERCISE OF CONTEMPT POWER WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS SET BY THE SUPREME COURT; ANDIV
THE PETITIONERS WERE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF DIRECT CONTEMPT.
Rule 11.03. - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
xxx every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations of public officers. This right is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority, or that it is articulated by a lawyer. Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded litigation, because then the court's actuation are thrown open to public consumption.xxx
Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. They should and expect critical evaluation of their performance. For like the executive and the legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic society, nourished by the periodic appraisal of the citizens whom it is expected to serve.
Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.xxxxxx
Hence, as a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right.No law may abridge this right.Nor is he "professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen." xxxxxx
But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. (emphasis supplied)26
3. Admittedly, the language of the Motion for Reconsideration was not endearing. However, the undersigned counsel found it necessary to bluntly call the Honorable Court's attention to the grievousness of the error by calling a spade a spade. The advocacy needed a strong articulation of the gravity of the error of the Honorable Court in avoiding the substantial and transcendental issues by the simple expedient of dismissing the petition for alleged lack of jurisdiction, in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires that the Decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the Decision was based.xxx
10. Since the Honorable Court simply quoted Section 7(a)(5), and it totally ignored Section 7(a)(3), to perfunctorily find that "(U)ndoubtedly, appeals of the decisions or rulings of the Regional Trial Court concerning real property taxes evidently do not fall within the jurisdiction of the CTA," the undersigned counsel formed a perception that the Honorable Court was totally unaware or ignorant of the new provision, Section 7(a)(3). Hence the statements that it was gross ignorance of the law for the Honorable Court to have held that it has no jurisdiction, as well as, the grossness of the Honorable Court's ignorance of the law is matched only by the unequivocal expression of this Honorable Court's jurisdiction over the instant case were an honest and frank articulation of undersigned counsel's perception that was influenced by its failure to understand why the Honorable Court totally ignored Section 7(a)(3) in ruling on its lack of jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied)39
Section 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:xxx
(3) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction; (emphasis supplied)xxx
(5) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals; (emphasis supplied)xxx
12. Undersigned counsel regrets having bluntly argued that this Honorable Court was grossly ignorant of Section 7(a)(3) because from the terseness of the Decision dated 05 January 2006, the undersigned counsel perceived the Honorable Court as being totally oblivious of Section 7(a)(3). Had the reasons discussed in the Resolution dated 15 March 2006 been articulated in the 05 January 2006 decision, there would have been no basis for undersigned counsels to have formed the above-mentioned perception.41 (emphasis supplied)
The court notices with considerable regret the heated and acrimonious tone of the remarks of the counsel for appellant, in his brief, in speaking of the action of the trial judge. We desire to express our opinion that excessive language weakens rather than strengthens the persuasive force of legal reasoning. We have noticed a growing tendency to use language that experience has shown not to be conducive to the orderly and proper administration of justice. We therefore bespeak the attorneys of this court to desist from such practices, and to treat their opposing attorneys, and the judges who have decided their cases in the lower court adversely to their contentions with that courtesy all have a right to expect. (emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 38-43.
2 Id., p. 43.
3 Id., pp. 45-49.
4 Id., p. 125.
5 Id., pp. 129-130, and p. 134 (respectively the letters dated November 5, 2002 and May 9, 2003 of Atty. Eddie N. Fernandez of the Mandaluyong City Legal Department).
6 Id., pp. 135-144.
7 Id., pp. 194-203.
8 Id., pp. 85-101.
9 Id., pp. 50-83.
10 Id., pp. 329-341.
11 Section 253. Repayment of Excessive Collections. - When an assessment of basic real property tax, or any other tax levied under this Title, is found to be illegal or erroneous and the tax is accordingly reduced or adjusted, the taxpayer may file a written claim for refund or credit for taxes and interests with the provincial or city treasurer within two (2) years from the date the taxpayer is entitled to such reduction or adjustment.
The provincial or city treasurer shall decide the claim for tax refund or credit within sixty (60) days from receipt thereof. In case the claim for tax refund or credit is denied, the taxpayer may avail of the remedies as provided in Chapter 3, Title II, Book II of this Code.
12 Section 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals.--Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.
13 Rollo, pp. 342-347.
14 Entitled An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Elevating Its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 1125, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Law Creating The Court Of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes.
15 Rollo, pp. 367-368 (underlining and quotation marks are parts of the original).
16 Id., pp. 369-387.
17 Id., p. 370.
18 Id., pp. 41-42.
19 Id., pp. 389-406.
20 Id., p. 404.
21 Id., pp. 46-47.
22 Id., p. 49.
23 Id., pp. 412-422 (Comment of the Court of Tax Appeals, First Division).
24 Id., pp. 436-455 (Comment of the OSG).
25 G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562.
26 Id., pp. 576-580.
27 Rollo, p. 342.
28 Id., pp. 343-344.
29 Id.
30 Mabanto v. Coliflores, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1533, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 349, 353; Enrique v. Caminade, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1966, March 21, 2006, 485 SCRA 98, 106.
31 Tacardon v. Ang, G.R. No. 159286, April 5, 2005; Ante v. Pascua, G.R. No. L-74997, June 28, 1988, 162 SCRA 782; Ang v. Castro, G.R. No. L-66371, May 15, 1985, 136 SCRA 453, 458.
32 17 Am Jur 2d, Contempt, §21, p. 385.
33 A.M. No., RTJ-05-1919, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 236; See also Re: Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda, A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 32; Ang v. Castro, supra, Note 31.
34 Id., p. 244.
35 Dissent, p. 2.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Rollo, pp. 370 and 374.
40 Rollo, pp. 356-357.
41 Id., p. 379.
42 57 Phil. 223, 226.
43 Racines v. Morallos, A.M. No. MTJ-081698, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 295, 302; Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072, January 9, 1970, 31 SCRA 1, 17.
44 Florido v. Dlorido, A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 132, 136-137; Lacurom v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, May 10, 2006.
45 Ng v. Alar, A.C. No. 7252, November 22, 2006, 507 SCRA 465.
46 Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778.
47 A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 32.
48 A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 196.
49 A.C. No. 6131, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 353.
50 A.C. No. 7252, November 22, 2006, 507 SCRA 465.
51 Rollo, pp. 367-368.
52 Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. -- A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court. (1a)
G.R. No. 174759 - Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F. Medina, petitioners, versus Court of Tax Appeals, First Division, respondent.
0 7 SEP 2011-
DISSENTING OPINION
DEL CASTILLO, /.:
Indeed, lawyers, as officers of the court, must refrain from using derogatory, offensive or abrasive language in their pleadings1 as the use of such language constitutes direct contempt, which is summarily punishable without need of a hearing.2 Courts, on the other hand, in exercising the power of contempt, must not be easily moved by pride or passion;3 but instead, be patient4 and impassive.
In this case, I find that I cannot agree with the finding of the majority that petitioners' statements were abrasive hence they are guilty of direct contempt.
Statements used by petitioners are strong,
tactless and hurtful but not contumacious.
The CTA found petitioners' use of the-phrases "it is gross ignorance of the law [for] the Honorable Court to have, held that it has no jurisdiction over the instant petition;" "the grossness of the Honorable Court's ignorance of the law is matched only by the unequivocal expression of this Honorable Court's jurisdiction over the instant case;" "this Court lacked the understanding or respect for the doctrine of stare decisis"5 as derogatory, offensive, and disrespectful.
Indeed, petitioners' statements are strong, tactless and hurtful. However, I do not find the same contumacious. Statements made by a counsel "explaining his position in a case under consideration do not necessarily assume the level of contempt."6 In fact, snide remarks or sarcastic innuendoes made by counsels are not considered contemptuous considering that an unfavorable decision usually incites bitter feelings.7
In their compliance, petitioners explained that:
3. Admittedly, the language of the Motion for Reconsideration was not endearing. However, the undersigned counsel found it necessary to bluntly call the Honorable Court's attention to the grievousness of the error by calling a spade a spade. The advocacy needed a strong articulation of the gravity of the error of the Honorable Court hi avoiding the substantial and transcendental issues by the simple expedient of dismissing the petition for alleged lack of jurisdiction, in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires that the Decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the Decision was based.
xxxx
5. Unfortunately, the renewed debate has been rendered moot and academic by [Surfield] who has advised the undersigned counsel, who now respectfully so manifests, that it has decided not to pursue the captioned case anymore.
xxxx
10. Since the Honorable Court simply quoted Section 7(a) (5), and it totally ignored Section 7(a) (3), to perfunctorily find that "(Undoubtedly, appeals of the decisions or rulings of the Regional Trial Court concerning real property taxes evidently do no fall within the jurisdiction of the CTA," the undersigned counsel formed a perception that the Honorable Court was totally unaware or ignorant of the hew provision, Section 7(a) (3).
xxxx
11.1 From being apparently oblivious of Section 7(a) (3) in the Decision 05 January 2006, it is evident in the Resolution dated 15 March 2006 that even the Honorable Court agrees that under Section 7(a) (3) of Republic Act (RA) 1125 as amended by RA 9282, it has jurisdiction if the following requisites are present; x x x
11.2 However, from totally ignoring Section 7(a) (3) in the Decision dated 05 January 2006, the Honorable Court in the Resolution dated 15 March 2006 in effect ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the instant case under Section 7(a) (3) because the third requisite is lacking, x x x
11.3 But with all due respects (sic), again, it is clear that the Honorable Court has not realized as yet that the proclamation in Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals that a real properly tax is a national tax has been rendered inapplicable under the Local Government Code (RA 7160).
12. Undersigned counsel regrets having bluntly argued that this Honorable Court was grossly ignorant of Section 7(a) (3) because from the terseness of the Decision dated 05 January 2006, the undersigned counsel perceived the Honorable Court as being totally oblivious of Section 7(a) (3). Had the reasons discussed in the Resolution dated 15 March 2006 x x x been articulated in the 05 January 2006 decision, there would have been no basis for the undersigned counsel to have formed the above mentioned perception.
xxxx
21. Again, with all due respect, the Honorable Court's insistence on re-opening and re-litigating a factual issue that has already been decided with finality by the Court of Appeals in Suguitan vs. Marcelino does violence to the time honored principle of res judicata.
xxxx
29. x x x The assertions of this Honorable Court that are clearly not supported by the records of the case below could only raise doubts about the judiciousness of its decision.8
Power of contempt must be exercised
on the preservative, not on the
vindictive principle.
On the other hand, I fully understand the sentiments of the CTA, more so because petitioners failed to show that it "committed an error that is so gross, patent, deliberate, palpable and malicious as to warrant such an accusation."9 However, I cannot sustain its finding of contempt because the power to punish for contempt "should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle."10 It must never be used for retaliation or vindication but only for the preservation of the dignity and integrity of the courts.11 Courts must therefore be patient and understanding of hasty and unguarded expressions of passion made by the losing party.12
Lawyers must observe
temperate language.
Finally, I take this opportunity to remind petitioners that as lawyers, they should be more cautious in expressing their dissatisfaction with the court. They must keep in mind that their language, though forceful and emphatic, must still be respectful and dignified, befitting advocates and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.13 They should also be reminded that as officers of the court, they should be circumspect in their language as their duty is to help build and not destroy the people's high esteem and regard for the courts.14
ACCORDINGLY, I vote that the Resolutions dated May 16, 2006 and July 26,2006 of the First Division of the Court of Tax Appeals finding petitioners Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F. Medina guilty of direct contempt be hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
1 Canon 11, Rule 11.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.
2 Re: Letter dated21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda, 502 Phil. 292,300 (2005).
3 Nuñez v. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1984, June 30,2009, 591 SCRA 229, 239.
4 Dagudag v. Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017, June 19, 2008, 555 SCRA 217, 234-235.
5 Rollo, p. at 367.
6 Soriano v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 226, 253 (2001).
7 Id. at 254.
8 Rollo, pp. 370-386.
9 Id. at 47.
10 Sulit v. Hon. Tiangco, 200 Phil. 597, 603 (1982).
11 Inonog v. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175, July 28,2009, 594 SCRA 168, 178.
12 id.
13 Ng v. Alar, A.C. No. 7252 [CBD 05-1434], November 22,2006, 507 SCRA 465, 473.
14 Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC Br. 121, Caloocan City in Crim. Cases Q-97-69655 to 56 for Child Abuse, A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 196, 214.