SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and MAC-ARTHUR
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS CO.

FACTS:
Original action for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, to restrain the Honorable Gaudencio
Cloribel, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, from continuing with the hearing of Civil Case No. 67400
of said Court, and from enforcing a restraining order issued therein on November 16, 1966, as well as to annul an
order of respondent Judge, in the same case, dated December 9, 1966.
From the records of said Case No. 67400, that the Company had no cause of action against petitioners and that,
accordingly, respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, in issuing
its restraining order of November 16, 1966, and its order of December 9, 1966, refusing, in effect, to set aside said
order of November 16, 1966.

First Contempt Case. The Supreme Court rendered a decision against MacArthur International Minerals
Corp and in their third Motion for Reconsideration, Attys. Santiago and Castro wanted for the two justices to inhibit
themselves in the MR. The Court demanded for Santiago and Sotto to "show cause" why they shouldn't be cited in
contempt for the said statements. Santiago insisted that the statements he made were inadvertently included in the
copy sent to the Court, and was just intended to be in the MR's rough draft.

Second Contempt Case. Counsel for MacArthur drafted a fourth motion for reconsideration, this time with
Atty. Juanito M. Caling as counsel, and again contained language which the Court found disrespectful. The MR
assailed the decision penned by CJ Concepcion since he was out of town when the decision was written and
included seeming threats of elevating the issue to the World Court and allegations of rise of graft and corruption in
the judiciary. The Court demanded Caling to also "show cause" and he said that it the motion was already prepared
by Santiago when he took the case as was verified by Morton Meads, an employee from MacArthur.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lawyers should be cited in contempt?

RULING:
Writ grated. Orders of respondent Judge dated November 16, and December 9, 1966, are annulled and the
writ of preliminary injunction issued in the present case made permanent, with costs against respondent, Mac-Arthur
International Minerals Company.

ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN

FACTS:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," filed on September 25,
1967, in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great injustice committed against his client by this Supreme
Court." He indicts the Court, in his own phrase, 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's he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment," has become
"one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy."

In the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of this Court,
saying "that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf
and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum," so that "the people may know of
the silent injustices committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were
committed must never be repeated." There is no use continuing his law practice, Almacen said in this petition,
"where our Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without
reason their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He
expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he earns his living, the present members of the
Supreme Court "will become responsive to all cases brought to its attention without discrimination, and will purge
itself of those unconstitutional and obnoxious "lack of merit" or "denied resolutions.

Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment by filing his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of
Title," already adverted to a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with the insolent contemptuous,
grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks against the Court as well as its individual members, a behavior that is
as unprecedented as it is unprofessional.

ISSUE:
Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment by filing his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of
Title," already adverted to — a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with the insolent contemptuous,
grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks hereinbefore reproduced, against this Court as well as its individual
members, a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional.

RULING:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen was suspended from the practice of law until further orders; the suspension was
to take effect immediately. The misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable gravity which 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 was viewed that the
suspension will suffice under the circumstances.

His demonstrated persistence in his misconduct by neither manifesting repentance nor offering apology
therefore left the court no way of determining how long that suspension should last and, accordingly, the court are
impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite. For, at any time after the suspension becomes effective he
may prove to the Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law.

CASTILLO v. PADILLA, JR.

FACTS:
Atty. Jose M. Castillo was the counsel for the defendants in Criminal Case for forcible entry before the MeTC
of Caloocan. Atty. Sabino Padilla, Jr. was counsel for the plaintiff. At the hearing of the case on November 19, 1981,
while Castillo was formally offering his evidence, he heard Padilla say "bobo." When Castillo turned toward Padilla,
he saw the latter looking at him menacingly. Embarrassed and humiliated in the presence of many people, Castillo
was unable to proceed with his offer of evidence. The court proceedings had to be suspended.

Thereafter, Atty. Castillo, complainant, seeks the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for the
use of insulting language in the course of judicial proceedings. While admitting the utterance, respondent denied
having directed the same at the complainant, claiming that what he said was "Ay, que bobo", referring to "the
manner complainant was trying to inject wholly irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the record" while in the
process of making an offer of evidence.
ISSUE:
WON the Atty. Padilla, respondent, should be disciplined?

RULING:
Yes, respondent is hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is directed to observe proper decorum and
restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely. Among the duties of an
attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the
justice of the cause with which he is charged.

The Canons of Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between counsel. Use
of intemperate language uncalled for in the case at bar, whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner
of offering evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no right
to interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so doing, he
exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court.

By the use of intemperate language, respondent failed to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a
member of the legal profession, which all the more deserves reproach because this is not the first time that
respondent has employed offensive language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has previously been
admonished to refrain from engaging in offensive personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the
preparation of his pleadings.

LITO V. BUENVIAJE vs. ATTY. MELCHOR G. MAGDAMO

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST

FACTS:
On October 10, 1969, Clemente M. Soriano, a member of the Philippine Bar entered his appearance in the
present case (L-24114, PHHC and U.P. vs. Mencias, Tiburcio, et al.) as "chief counsel of record" for the
respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al. This act in itself would have been innocuous were it not for the fact that it was
done one year and eight months after the decision in this case became final. Atty. Soriano asked the Court to
exhume the case from the archives. Atty. Soriano's subsequent explanation did not, however, serve to dissuade this
Court from requiring him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for entering an
appearance at such a late date.

He alleged that sometime during the first week of October 1969, the respondent Marcelino Tiburcio, in his
own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of the other respondents, went to him to engage his professional services in two
cases, to wit: this terminated case (L-24114) and the Varsity Hills case (L-30546). Atty. Soriano allegedly relied
upon the assurance of a mutual acquaintance and representation of Marcelino Tiburcio that the two cases were
pending in the Court. He then agreed to render professional services in the two cases in consideration of a
contingent fee of 143.33 hectares of land out of the 430 hectares (more or less) involved in the two cases.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Soriano is guilty of negligence.
RULING:
YES. Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the Bar, a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the conformity of
the counsel whom he would substitute. And if this cannot be had, then he should, at the very least, give notice to
such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. His entry of appearance in the case without the consent of the first
lawyer amounts to an improper encroachment upon the professional employment of the original counsel.

Atty. Soriano violates Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another
lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

We find Atty. Clemente M. Soriano guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer
and as an officer of this Court. This inexcusable negligence would merit no less than his suspension from the
practice of the law profession, were it not for his candor, at the hearing of this incident, in owning his mistake and
the apology he made to this Court. It is the sense of this Court, however, that he must be as he is hereby severely
censured. Atty. Soriano is further likewise warned that any future similar act will be met with heavier disciplinary
sanction.

Atty. Soriano is hereby ordered, in the present case, to forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has
entered as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al.