Del Mar Vs Gica

JORGE MONTECILLO and QUIRICO DEL MAR vs. FRANCISCO M.
GICA, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, JOSE N. LEUTERIO, and RAMON G.

GAVIOLA, Justices of the Court of Appeals
FACTS:
As a result of an alleged slander committed by Jorge Montecillo on Francisco M.
Gica (the former allegedly calling the latter "stupid" or a "fool'), Gica filed a
criminal and civil complaint for oral defamation against Montecillo. The case was
elevated to the Court of Appeals. docketed as CA-G.R. No. 46504-R, which ruled
in favor of Gica. Respondent Atty. Quirico del Mar when, as counsel for
Montecillo, moved for a reconsideration of the decision with a veiled threat by
mentioning the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on "knowingly rendering
unjust judgment" and "judgment rendered through negligence" and that the Court
of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived.
The Appellate Court denied the motion for reconsideration and admonished
respondent to refrain from threats and abusive language. Respondent persisted and
made another threat in his second motion for reconsideration by stating that his
next appeal would be addressed to the President of the Philippines. The Appellate
Court ordered respondent to explain why he should not be punished for contempt
of court. Respondent made a written explanation stating that he was not making
any threat but only informing the Appellate Court of the course of action he would
follow. On the same date, respondent del Mar sent a letter to the Justices of the
Court of Appeals informing them that he sent a letter to the President of the
Philippines, furnishing them a copy thereof, and requesting the Justices to take into
consideration the contents of said letter. Not content with that move, respondent
del Mar sent another letter to the same Justices of the Court of Appeals wherein he
reminded them of a civil case he instituted against Justices of the Supreme Court
for damages in a decision rendered not in accordance with law and justice, stating
that he would not like to do it again but would do so if provoked.
The Appellate Court concluded that respondent del Mar is guilty of contempt and
ordered suspended from the practice of law. Respondent sued the three Justices for
damages in their decision in CA-G.R. No. 46504-R which was then terminated by
a compromise agreement after respondent himself moved for the dismissal of his
complaint. Thereafter, respondent filed his motion before the Supreme Court
asking that his suspension from the practice of law be ignored because of the
amicable settlement in the action for damages filed against the Justices of the
Appellate Court.
Respondent del Mar's ire at the Appellate Court turned against the Supreme Court
when the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Appellate Court in
CA-G.R. No. 46504-R was denied. Respondent filed his motion for
reconsideration and wrote a letter addressed to the Clerk of this Court requesting
the names of the Justices of this Court who supported the resolution denying his
petition, together with the names of the Justices favoring his motion for
reconsideration. This motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. He,
then, filed a manifestation stating that had the Clerk of Court furnished him with
certified true copies of the last two Resolutions of the Supreme Court confirming
the decision of the Court of Appeals, he would have filed against the Justices
supporting the same, civil and criminal suit as he did to the Justices of the Court of
Appeals.
The Supreme Court then required respondent del Mar to show cause why
disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the contemptuous
statements contained in his manifestation. The contents of respondent’s
explanation reveal a continued veiled threat against the Justices of this Court who
voted to deny del Mar's petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Court of Court Appeals in CA-G R. No. 46504-R. In his additional explanation,
respondent is utilizing what exists in his mind as state of graft, corruption and
injustice allegedly rampant in and outside of the government as justification for his
contemptuous statements.
When this Court in the resolution directed the Judicial Consultant to circularize to
all courts concerning the order of the Court of Appeals suspending Atty. Quirico
del Mar from the practice of law, filed a motion for reconsideration on the said
directive. In his explanation, respondent still persistently justifies his contemptuous
statements and at the same time pleads that his physical and mental ailment be
considered. Respondent shrewdly stated at the end of his explanation that he has
decided for reasons of sickness and old age to retire from the practice of law, in
practical anticipation of whatever penalty may be imposed on him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held in contempt of court and be suspended
from the practice of law.
HELD:
YES. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful
attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority
of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect
for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without
such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
Criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the
dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially. It is an act
obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into
disrepute or disrespect. Respondent’s actions in resorting to veiled threats to make
both Courts reconsider their respective stand in the decision and the resolution that
spelled disaster for his client cannot be anything but pure disrespect for said
tribunals. In assuming that his personal knowledge of the law and his concept of
justice are superior to that of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals,
respondent’s pretense cannot but tend to erode the people's faith in the integrity of
the courts of justice and in the administration of justice.

Del Mar Vs Gica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Mar Vs Gica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Mar Vs Gica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JORGE MONTECILLO and QUIRICO DEL MAR vs. FRANCISCO M.

GICA, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, JOSE N. LEUTERIO, and RAMON G.

You might also like