Maglasang v People | G.R. No.

90083 | October 4, 1990| PER CURIAM

Petitioner: KHALYXTO PEREZ MAGLASANG
Respondents: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Presiding Judge ERNESTO B. TEMPLADO (San Carlos City Court),
Negros Occidental
Prepared by: Vianca Miguel
SUMMARY: A petition for certiorari by petitioner was denied for non-compliance with circ. 1-88. The counsel moved
for reconsideration and only complied partially with the circular and therefore the motion for reconsideration was
denied with finality. The court received a copy of the complaint of the petitioner signed by counsel addressed to the
Office of the President accusing the justices of the 2 nd division of biases and ignorance of the law among other things.
The court held that no other department or agency but the Judiciary may pass upon its judgments or declare them
'unjust,” not even the President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court's acts.
He was found guilty of contempt of court

DOCTRINE: Rule 13.03—A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.

 a petition for certiorari—“Khalyxto Perez Maglasang vs. People of the Philippines, Presiding Judge, Ernesto
B. Templado (San Carlos City Court) Negros Occidental"—was filed by registered mail with the Court.
 The court dismissed the petition for non-compliance with Circular No. 1-88 as to the payment of legal fees
(P316.5) and the attachment of the duplicate originals or duly certified true copies of the questioned decision
and orders of the respondent judge denying the motion for reconsideration
 Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano, as counsel of the petitioner, moved for a reconsideration of the resolution
dismissing the petition.
 the amount of P316.50 was remitted and the Court was furnished with a duplicate copy of the respondent
judge's decision, and also the IBP O.R. No. and the date of the payment of his membership dues, but it did
not contain the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed orders and therefore, the motion for
reconsideration was denied "with FINALITY."
 The Court received from Atty. Castellano a copy of a complaint signed by hm and the complainant’s father,
filed with the Office of the President of the Philippines whereby Khalyxto Perez Maglasang, through his
lawyer, Atty. Castellano, as complainant, accused all the five Justices of the Court's Second Division with
"biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or resolution."
 By reason of the strong and intemperate language of the complaint and its improper filing with the Office of
the President, which, as he should know as a lawyer, has no jurisdiction to discipline, much more, remove,
Justices of the Supreme Court, Atty. Castellano was required to show cause why he should not be punished
for contempt or administratively dealt with for improper conduct.
 Atty. Castellano the complaint was a constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and
very strict practices of the Justices and he disputed the authority and jurisdiction of the Court in issuing the
Resolution requiring him to show cause because they are already the respondents in the case they no more
have jurisdiction to give such order.
 Complaint excerpts1
ISSUES + RULING
W/N Atty. Castellano violated canon 11yYes
 His allegations that the Court in dismissing his petition did so "to save their brethren in rank and office
(Judiciary) Judge Ernesto B. Templado," and that the dismissal was "based more for money reasons;" and his
insinuation that the Court maintains a double standard in dispensing justice — one set for the rich and another
for the poor — went beyond the bounds of "constructive criticism."
 The complaint to the OP wasn’t relevant to the case and casts aspersion on the Court's integrity as a neutral
and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies brought before it.
 petition was dismissed initially by the Court for the counsel's failure to fully comply with the requirements laid
down in Circular No. 1-88, a circular on expeditious disposition of cases
 he still fell short in complying fully with the requirements of Circular No. 1-88 by failing to furnish the Court with

1 the justices were called scalawags (Marcos Appointees and Loyalists), fallables (sic), being bias, playing ignorance of the law and knowingly
rendering unjust Resolutions the reason observed by the undersigned and believed by him in good faith, is that they are may be
Marcos-appointees, whose common intention is to sabotage the Aquino Administration and to rob from innocent Filipino people the genuine Justice
and Democracy, so that they will be left in confusion and turmoil to their advantage and to the prejudice of our beloved President's honest, firm and
determined Decision to bring back the real Justice in all our Courts…the dismissal of the petition was based more of money reasons. . . .
Respondents-Justices, were so strict or inhumane and so inconsiderate that there dispensation (sic) of genuine justice was too far and beyond the
reach of the Accused-Appellant, as a common tao, as proved by records of both cases mentioned above.
 duplicate original or duty certified true copies of the other questioned orders issued by the respondent trial
court judge.
 At any rate, the explanation given by Atty. Castellano did not render his earlier negligence excusable. Thus,
as indicated in our Resolution dated October 18, 1989 which denied with finality his motion for
reconsideration, "no valid or compelling reason (having been) adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought."
 Anent the finality of the denial of the motion for reconsideration because there was no showing of compelling
reasons, under paragraph 5 of Circular No. 1-88 it is provided that "(S)ubsequent compliance with the above
requirements will not warrant reconsideration of the order of dismissal unless it be shown that such
non-compliance was due to compelling reasons.”
 It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Atty. Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the
members of the Court's Second Division, but simply because of his inexcusable negligence and
incompetence.
 In the hope of salvaging his reputation before his client, he seeks to pass on the blame for his deficiencies to
the Court which is grossly improper.
 As an officer of the Court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the
Court just to keep the confidence of his client.
 “a lawyer's 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." Thus,
"while a lawyer must advocate his client's cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill he can
marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo."
 The court is not immune from criticisms but , "[i]t is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it
shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists
between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on
the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts."
 CANON 11-A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. xxx xxx xxx
RULE 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menancing language or behavior before the
courts.
RULE 11.04 — A lawyer should not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or have materiality to the
case.
W/N Atty. Castellano violated Rule 13.03 (Relevant to the topic)
 Rule 13.03—A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in
the normal course of judicial proceedings.
 Important: in filing the "complaint" with the Office of the President against the justices of the Court's Second
Division, even the most basic tenet of our government system — the separation of powers—has been lost on
Atty. Castellano
 the Supreme Court is supreme — the third great department of government entrusted exclusively with the
judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes, public and private
 No other department or agency but the Judiciary may pass upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust,” not
even the President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court's acts
 Anent, Atty. Castellano's assertion that the complaint "was a constructive criticism intended to correct in good
faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the Justices, concerned as Respondents "
 Court: It was only a last minute effort to sanitize his clearly unfounded and irresponsible accusation.
 It was clearly not criticism as shown by his arrogance in insisting that the Court has no jurisdiction to question
his act of having complained before the Office of the President, and in claiming that a contempt order is used
as a weapon by judges and justices against practicing lawyers
 The complaint was vilification of the honor and integrity of the Justices of the Second Division of the Court and
an impeachment of their capacity to render justice according to law.

Dispositive: Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano is found guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT and IMPROPER CONDUCT as
a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court, and is hereby ordered to PAY (P1,000.00) Pesos, or SUFFER ten
(10) days imprisonment, and SUSPENDED from the practice of law throughout the Philippines for six (6) months, with
a WARNING that a repetition of any misconduct on his part will be dealt with more severely.