Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Canon 10 Cases
Canon 10 Cases
Aguilar
240 SCRA 589 (1995)
Facts:
After
After respondent judge ruled against petitioners
Atty. Tiongco and his wifes case for recovery of
possession and damages, petitioner was charged
for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He characterized the decision of
respondent Judge as having been crafted in
order to fool the winning party; as a
hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs favour; one
with perfidious character; and one which "you
could have sworn it was the Devil who dictated
it".
Tiongco described respondent Judge as a liar,
perjurer or blasphemer. He also called the
respondent judge a "robber," "rotten
manipulator," "abettor" of graft and corruption,
and "cross-eyed."
Issue:
Is Tiongcos act of criticizing the Judges
judgment a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes. Tiongcos criticism of the Judges
judgment violated Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as the
lawyers oath and Rules of court.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that a lawyer shall observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts and
to judicial matters, and should insist on similar
conduct by others
The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely
entwined with his vow in the lawyers oath to
conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity
to the courts, and his duty under Section 20(b)
of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
and judicial officers.
It does not, however, follow that just because a
lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot
criticize the courts. That is his right as a citizen,
and it is even his duty as an officer of the court
to avail of such right. Nevertheless, such a right
Facts:
In 1921, Atty. Feliciano Gomez lost an election
protest case for the governorship of Laguna filed
by Juan Cailles which reached the Supreme
Court. Thereafter, at a public meeting at a fiesta
celebration Gomez remarked that the Supreme
Court sided with Cailles as a favor to then
Governor-General Wood who was a friend of
Cailles. Said statements were published in a
newspaper and likewise substantiated by four
affidavits.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Gomez is guilty of contempt?
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court decided not hold Gomez
for contempt.
Held:
In re: Gomez
43 Phil 376