Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lacson JR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    heirarchy
    311 views1 page
    Atty. Fortes filed a motion for reconsideration of a court resolution denying his client's petition. In the motion, he accused the court of not reading the petition and denying it based on a "preconceived resolution". The court then directed Atty. Fortes to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The court ultimately found Atty. Fortes in contempt for his "unfounded accusations" against the court, "diminishing public confidence" in the court. Atty. Fortes was ordered to pay a fine of 2,000 pesos and warned that further violations would be dealt with more severely.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Lacson Jr vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Atty. Fortes filed a motion for reconsideration of a court resolution denying his client's petition. In the motion, he accused the court of not reading the petition and denying it based on a "preconceived resolution". The court then directed Atty. Fortes to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The court ultimately found Atty. Fortes in contempt for his "unfounded accusations" against the court, "diminishing public confidence" in the court. Atty. Fortes was ordered to pay a fine of 2,000 pesos and warned that further violations would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    311 views1 page

    Lacson JR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    heirarchy
    Atty. Fortes filed a motion for reconsideration of a court resolution denying his client's petition. In the motion, he accused the court of not reading the petition and denying it based on a "preconceived resolution". The court then directed Atty. Fortes to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The court ultimately found Atty. Fortes in contempt for his "unfounded accusations" against the court, "diminishing public confidence" in the court. Atty. Fortes was ordered to pay a fine of 2,000 pesos and warned that further violations would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JOSE R.

    HERNANDEZ,
    ET AL.
    FACTS:
    The contempt aspect of this case arose from the motion for reconsideration of 6
    June 1994 which Atty. Fortes filed. He sought therein the reconsideration of the resolution
    of 11 May 1994 which the court denied the instant petition. He contends that "the petition
    was denied wholly on the basis of technicality"; that the "denial did not consider the fraud
    sought to be stopped"; and that in peremptorily denying the petition, this Court disregarded
    the purpose of judicial proceedings, i.e., "to seek the truth," even as it is "unusual that the
    Resolution failed on this aspect," and upheld" the fake and falsified OCT No. 730 of the
    Tuazons." He further stated therein that:
    it pained the petitioners and their counsel to surmise that nobody cared to read the
    Petition. If they did they refused to understand the arguments in order not to blur the
    preconceived resolution of this case.
    In the resolution the Court (a) denied with finality the motion to reconsider the
    resolution of 11 May 1994 which denied the instant petition for the failure of the petitioners
    to sufficiently show that the respondent court committed any reversible error in rendering
    the challenged decision, and (b) directed the counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Mario G.
    Fortes, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and declared liable for
    misconduct for his "apparently malicious and unfounded accusation that this Court did not
    read the petition and for craftily suppressing from the body of the petition the final decision
    in CA-G.R. CR No. 11465.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Fortes should be held in contempt of court and declared liable
    for misconduct?
    HELD:
    Yes. Ordered to pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2, 000.00) and warned that the
    commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
    Indisputably then, Atty. Fortes' sole purpose was to show and prove his clients that
    he was all the time correct and this Court dismally wrong not only for veering away from
    the true purpose of judicial proceedings and suppressing the truth and upholding and illegal
    title, but, worse, for not even reading the petition or if it did, for not understanding it in
    order to hide its prejudgment of the case. In so doing upon a matrix of false and unfounded
    premises, Atty. Fortes did an immeasurable disservice to this Court by putting it into
    dishonor, disrespect, and public contempt, diminishing public confidence or promoting
    distrust in the Court, and assailing the integrity of its Members and even charging them
    without violating their duty to render justice.
    Thus, Atty. Fortes deliberately disregarded or ignored his solemn oath to conduct
    himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good
    fidelity to the courts and his duties to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
    justice and judicial officers (Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court; Canon 11, Code of
    Professional Responsibility), observe candor, fairness and good faith to the courts (Canon
    10, Code of Professional Responsibility), and 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 supreme importance (Canon 1, Canons of Professional Ethics). A client's
    cause does not permit an attorney to cross the line between liberty and license. lawyers
    must always keep in perspective the thought that since lawyers are administrators of
    justice, oath-bound servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients as many
    suppose, but to the administration of justice; to this, their client's success is wholly
    subordinate; and their conduct ought to and must be scrupulously observant of law and
    ethics.

    You might also like