CANON 11

RULE 11.03 – A LAWYER SHALL ABSTAIN FROM SCANDALOUS,

OFFENSIVE, OR MENACING LANGUAGE OR BEHAVIOR BEFORE THE
COURTS
SANGALANG VS IAC,
G.R. NO. 71169 AUGUST 30, 1989

FACTS:
The incident before the Court refers to charges for contempt against
Atty. J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and
Lutgarda Sangalang. (G.R. No. 71169.)

On February 2, 1989, the Court issued a Resolution, requiring, among

other things, Atty. Sangco to show cause why he should not be punished
for contempt "for using intemperate and accusatory language."
• ... [T]o ignore the fact that Jupiter Street was originally constructed for the
exclusive benefit of the residents of Bel- Air Village, or rule that
respondent Court's admission of said fact is "inaccurate," as Ayala's
Counsel himself would like to do but did not even contend, is a
manifestation of this Court's unusual partiality to Ayala and puts to serious
question its integrity on that account.
• [i]t is submitted that this ruling is the most serious reflection on the
Court's competence and integrity and exemplifies its manifest partiality
towards Ayala. It is a blatant disregard of documented and
incontrovertible and uncontroverted factual findings of the trial court fully
supported by the records and the true significance of those facts which
both the respondent court and this Court did not bother to read and
consequently did not consider and discuss, least of all in the manner it did
with respect to those in which it arrived at conclusions favorable to Ayala.
• ... [t]he Court not only put to serious question its own
integrity and competence but also jeopardized its own
campaign against graft and corruption undeniably pervading
the judiciary ... 
• The blatant disregard of controlling, documented and
admitted facts not put in issue, such as those summarily
ignored in this case; the extraordinary efforts exerted to
justify such arbitrariness and the very strained and
unwarranted conclusions drawn therefrom, are unparalleled
in the history of this Court ... 
• ... [A]re all these unusual exercise of such arbitrariness above
suspicion? Will the current campaign of this Court against
graft and corruption in the judiciary be enhanced by such
The Court said:
• Atty. Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration are
disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled for. His suggestions
that the Court might have been guilty of graft and corruption
in acting on these cases are not only unbecoming, but
comes, as well, as an open assault upon the Court's honor
and integrity.
• We are not satisfied with his explanation that he was merely
defending the interests of his clients. “A lawyer’s first duty is
not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that
end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his
conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant
of law and ethics.” And while a lawyer must advocate his
client's cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill
RULING:
Atty. J. Cezar Sangco is guilty of contempt of court and faces
punishment for professional misconduct or malpractice.
He is (1) SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
months effective from receipt hereof, and (2) ORDERED to pay
a fine of P 500.00 payable from receipt hereof.
 IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY
ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN
G.R. NO. L-27654 FEBRUARY 18, 1970

FACTS:
• Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen’s filed a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's
Certificate of Title," in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great
injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court."
• This stemmed from the denial of his petition for review in the case of
Yaptinchay vs Calero. His MR was rejected by the CA because it did not
contain  a notice of time and place of hearing. The SC, by minute
resolution, denied his appeals to review the case. His own negligence
caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which, incidentally, is not a
matter of right.
• He indicts this Court as a tribunal "peopled by men who are calloused
to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable
decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity."
• His client, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment,"
has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy."
• He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the
aforementioned petition. Atty Almacen said he did it to expose the
tribunal's "unconstitutional and obnoxious" practice of arbitrarily
denying petitions or appeals without any reason. Because of the
tribunal's "short-cut justice," Almacen deplored, his client was
condemned to pay P120,000, without knowing why he lost the case.
• He ended his petition with a prayer that
... a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the
certificate of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN
TRUST with reservation that at any time in the future and in
the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve
our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.
• “Nonetheless we decided by resolution to withhold action on his
petition until he shall have actually surrendered his certificate.
Patiently, we waited for him to make good his proffer. No word
came from him. So he was reminded to turn over his certificate,
which he had earlier vociferously offered to surrender, so that
this Court could act on his petition. To said reminder he
manifested "that he has no pending petition in connection with
Case G.R. No. L-27654, Calero vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now
final and executory;" that this Court's resolution did not require
him to do either a positive or negative act; and that since his
offer was not accepted, he "chose to pursue the negative act.””
The Court said:
• Well-recognized 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. The reason is that:
“An attorney does not surrender, in assuming the important place accorded to him in
the administration of justice, his right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts
in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the
judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. (In re Ades, 6 F Supp. 487) .”

• “... an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to

be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts; he may
be removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being
guilty of flagrant misconduct”
• RULING: Aty. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.

 ”That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable

gravity cannot be overemphasized. However, heeding the stern
injunction that disbarment should never be decreed where a lesser
sanction would accomplish the end desired, and believing that it may
not perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of some future
day, Atty. Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to
do disservice to an advocate and that in every effervescence of
candor there is ample room for the added glow of respect, it is our
view that suspension will suffice under the circumstances.”
BACULI VS. BATTUNG
A.C. NO. 8920, SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
FACTS:
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for
Violation of Canon 11 and Canon 12 of the CPR.
• During a hearing, respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge
Baculi 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 Baculi
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 Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the
respondent out of the courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of
court for the second time.
• After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the respondent. The
respondent again shouted in a threatening tone, "Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" He kept on shouting, "I am
not afraid of you!" and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers
escorted him out of the building.
• Judge Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the courtroom, he
continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court
• The respondent filed his Answer, essentially saying that it was Judge
Baculi who disrespected him. “It was JUDGE BACULI WHO
DISRESPECTED ME. He did not like that I just submit the Motion for
Reconsideration without oral argument because he wanted to have an
occasion to just HUMILIATE ME and to make appear to the public that I
am A NEGLIGENT LAWYER, when he said "YOU JUSTIFY YOUR
NEGLIGENCE BEFORE THIS COURT" making it an impression to the
litigants and the public that as if I am a NEGLIGENT, INCOMPETENT,
MUMBLING, and IRRESPONSIBLE LAWYER.”
• Respondent claims that he was provoked by the presiding judge that is
why he shouted back at him. But after hearing the tape of the incident,
it was Atty. Battung who shouted first at the complainant.
• RULING:
• 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.
• Atty. Batung  is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective
upon the finality of this Decision. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
CANON 11
RULE 11.04 – A LAWYER SHALL NOT ATTRIBUTE TO A JUDGE
MOTIVES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD OR HAVE NO
MATERIALITY TO THE CASE
ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS ET. AL VS. CITY OF
URDANETA ET. AL - G.R. NO. 162525
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
FACTS:
This case stemmed from a Complaint for annulment of contracts  filed by
respondent Waldo C. Del Castillo, in his capacity as taxpayer, against
respondents City of Urdaneta and Ceferino J. Capalad (JJEFWA Builders), and
petitioners Asean Pacific Planners (APP) and Asean Pacific Planners
Construction and Development Corporation (APPCDC). The contracts were
entered into by the Urdaneta City Mayor for the preliminary design,
construction and management of a four-storey twin cinema commercial
center and hotel involving a massive expenditure of public funds.
• For Capalad, Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun filed an Answer with compulsory
counterclaim and motion to dismiss on the ground that Del Castillo has no
legal standing to sue.
• After pre-trial, Capalad and the City of Urdaneta switched sides. The trial
court permitted the withdrawal of their respective answers filed by Atty.
Sahagun and admitted their complaints against APP and APPCDC. Atty.
Jorito C. Peralta represented Capalad while Lazaro Law Firm represented
Urdaneta City.
• Aggrieved, APP and APPCDC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court
of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the following
grounds: (1) defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping,
(2) failure of the petitioners to submit certified true copies of the RTC's
assailed orders as mere photocopies were submitted, and (3) lack of
written explanation why service of the petition to adverse parties was not
personal.
• Before we close, notice is taken of the offensive language used by
Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. Escalante in their pleadings
before us and the Court of Appeals. 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." In
explaining the "concededly strong language," Atty. Sahagun further
indicted himself. He said that 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 for the cold neutrality and impartiality
demanded of the appellate court.“
RULING:
“Accordingly, we impose upon Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and
Antonio B. Escalante a fine of P2,000 each payable to this
Court within ten days from notice and we remind them that
they should observe and maintain the respect due to the Court
of Appeals and judicial officers; abstain from offensive
language before the courts; and not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record. Similar acts in the future
will be dealt with more severely.”
1987 CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VIII SEC. 6

“The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over

all courts and the personnel thereof.”

Doctrine of Separation of Powers

-no encroachment in the Supreme Court’s power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.
CANON 11
RULE 11.05 – A LAWYER SHALL SUBMIT GRIEVANCES AGAINST A
JUDGE TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES ONLY
LACUROM VS JACOBA
A.C. NO. 5921, MARCH 10, 2006
FACTS:
The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Veneracion in a
civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant. The Municipal Trial
Court of Cabanatuan City rendered judgment 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
judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion.
Veneracion’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 July 2001 signed by Atty.
Olivia Velasco-Jacoba. Pertinent portions of which read:
II. PREFATORY STATEMENT
This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID of factual
and legal basis. It is a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT acted as if it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x
x HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x

III. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION

4. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED in Holding That the Defendant is
Entitled to a Homelot, and That the Residential LOT in Question is That Homelot:
THIS ERROR IS STUPENDOUS and a real BONER. Where did the Honorable PAIRING JUDGE
base this conclusion? x x x This HORRENDOUS MISTAKE must be corrected here and now!
6. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED Grievously in Holding
and Declaring that The [court] A QUO Erroneously Took Cognizance of the
Case and That It Had No Jurisdiction over the Subject-Matter:
Another HORRIBLE ERROR! Even an average Law Student knows that
JURISDICTION is determined by the averments of the COMPLAINT and not by
the averments in the answer! This is backed up by a Litany of Cases!

7. FINALLY, the Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge Ridiculously ERRED

in Ordering the Defendant To Pay P10,000.00 to the Plaintiff As Payment for
Plaintiff’s HOUSE:
THIS IS the Last STRAW, but it is also the Best ILLUSTRATION of the Manifold
GLARING ERRORS committed by the Hon. Pairing Court Judge.
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
said "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. Velasco-Jacoba
moved for reconsideration of the 13 September 2001 order.
• Velasco-Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her guilty of contempt without
conducting any hearing. She accused Judge Lacurom of harboring "a personal
vendetta,“. At any rate, she argued, Judge Lacurom should have inhibited himself from
the case out of delicadeza because "[Veneracion] had already filed against him criminal
cases before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City and before the
Ombudsman."
• The records show that with the assistance of counsel Jacoba and the Jacoba-Velasco-
Jacoba Law Firm, Veneracion had executed an affidavit on 23 August 2001 accusing
Judge Lacurom of knowingly rendering unjust judgment through inexcusable negligence
and ignorance and violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The first charge
became the subject of a preliminary investigation by the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan
City. On the second charge, Veneracion set forth his allegations in a Complaint-
Affidavit filed on 28 August 2001 with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
RULING:
“Judge Lacurom’s orders in Civil Case No. 2836 could not be the subject of an
administrative complaint against him while a petition for certiorari assailing the
same orders is pending with an appellate court. Administrative remedies are
neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is
available to the aggrieved parties and the same has not been resolved with
finality. Until there is a final declaration that the challenged order or judgment is
manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the judge is
administratively liable. The Court’s attention is drawn to the fact that the timing
of the filing of these administrative cases could very well raise the suspicion
that the cases were intended as leverage against Judge Lacurom.”
“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.”