Pentecostes vs Judge Rafael Hidalgo

A.M. Nos. RTJ-89-331, September 28,1990

Facts:
Complainant Prudencio S. Penticostes has filed a series of administrative
charges against Judge Rafael B. Hidalgo of Regional Trial Court Branch 68 of Tarlac,
Tarlac. In the resolution dated June 20, 1989 dismissing RTJ-294, the Court
admonished the complainant “to exercise more care and decorum in filing unfounded
and unsubstantiated charges against officers of the court in order to maintain and
uphold the dignity of the same of which he is part”.
The Court directed the Office of the Court Administrator to gather all charges
filed by the complainant against the respondent Judge and thereafter consolidated six
administrative complaints.
Subsequent to the June 20, 1989 admonition, complainant continued to file
charges against respondent. He also threatened to bang more cases, as evidenced the
following: counsel will make it appear on record that if the motion and joint motion
will not be acted on March 21, 1990 as scheduled, he will be forced much his regret
to file the following administrative and criminal complaints, against the presiding
judge, namely:
1. Violation of his oath
2. Falsification
3. Knowingly rendering an unlawful order;
4. Maliciously delaying the administration of justice;
5. Grave misconduct.
Issue:
Whether or not a judge may be answerable for violation of the law and the
Coode of Judicial Conduct.
Whether or not the complainant shall be suspended from the practice of law.
Ruling:
Not every order or ruling adverse to a party can be made the basis for an
administrative charge.
As a member of the bar, the complainant has responsibilities to the judiciary.
The Code of Professional Responsibility and the rules thereunder impose obligations
on the lawyer in relation to the court: Canon 10 states that a lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court. Canon 11 provides that a lawyer shall observe
and maintain the respect due to the court and to the judicial officers, while Canon
12 mandates that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assit
in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Through his imprudent filing
of administrative cases against respondent judge, complainant has transgressed the
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and miserably failed to observe
conduct expected of a member of the bar under the code and in accordance with his
lawyer’s oath.
Wherefore, having found the charges above-mentioned to be absolutely without
basis, the Court resolve to
1. Dismiss all the 6 complaints
2. Impose upon complainant fine of 1000 payable within 10 days from receipt or
imprisonment for 10 days in case of failure to pay
3. Suspend complainant from the practice of law for 1 year.

Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom vs.Jacoba

A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006

Facts:
The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R.
Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant Barrientos. The
Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City rendered judgement in favor of Veneracion
but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial Court. The case was raffled to Branch
30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge.
On 29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution reversing the earlier
judgements rendered in favor of Veneracion.
Furthermore, the plaintiff-appellee Veneracion is ordered to CEASE and DESIST
from ejecting the defendant-appellant Barrientos from the 1000 sq.m. homelot.
Veneracion’s Counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Request of
Inhibition dated 30 July 2001.
The 30 July 2001 motion prayed that 1 Judge Lacurom inhibit himself "in order
to give plaintiff a fighting chance" and 2 the Resolution be reconsidered and set
aside. Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba signed the motion on behalf of the Jacoba-
Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm.
On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his
sala and explain why she should not be held in contempt of court for the "very
disrespectful, insulting and humiliating" contents of the 30 July 2001 motion.
Velasco-Jacoba claimed that "His Honor knows beforehand who actually prepared the
subject Motion; records will show that the undersigned counsel did not actually or
actively participate in this case." Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any "conscious or
deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the Honorable Court or to
detract in any form from the respect that is rightfully due all courts of justice."

Nevertheless, Velasco-Jacoba expressed willingness to apologize "for whatever

mistake they may have committed in a moment of unguarded discretion when they may
have ‘stepped on the line and gone out of bounds." She also agreed to have the
allegedly contemptuous phrases stricken off the record.

On 13 September 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt

and penalized her with imprisonment for five days and a fine of P1,000.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents are liable under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling:
There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-Jacoba appears on
the 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-Jacoba’s responsibility as counsel is governed by
Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 3 Signature and address. Every pleading must be signed by the party or
counsel representing him
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the
pleading, that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good
ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay.
 Counsel who signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous
or indecent matter therein shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

We now consider the evidence as regards Jacoba. His name does not appear in
the 30 July 2001 motion. He asserts the inadmissibility of Velasco-Jacoba’s
statement pointing to him as the author of the motion.

The Court cannot easily let Jacoba off the hook. Firstly, his Answer with
Second Motion for Inhibition did not contain a denial of his wife’s account.
Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by stating that he
"trained his guns and fired at the errors which he perceived and believed to be
gigantic and monumental."

Secondly, we find Velasco-Jacoba’s version of the facts more plausible, for

two reasons: (1) her reaction to the events was immediate and spontaneous, unlike
Jacoba’s defense which was raised only after a considerable time had elapsed from
the eruption of the controversy; and (2) Jacoba had been counsel of record for
Veneracion in Civil Case No. 2836, supporting Velasco-Jacoba’s assertion that she
had not "actually participate[d]" in the prosecution of the case.

The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure
of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any conduct that may be
construed as implied consent. This waiver applies to Jacoba who impliedly admitted
authorship of the 30 July 2001 motion.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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 motive not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.

In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely enjoined
to use dignified language but also to pursue the client’s cause through fair and
honest means, thus:

Rule 19.01.—A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any
case or proceeding.

WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2)
years effective upon finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia
Velasco-Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of
this Decision. We STERNLY WARN respondents that a repetition of the same or
similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.