View full case

SPS. JOSE B. TIONGCO v. SEVERIANO C. AGUILAR

FACTS:

In this case, Atty. Jose B. Tiongco, counsel for the petitioners, was required by the Court to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court cited Tiongco's insinuation that the Court did not read the petition, which was deemed unfounded and malicious, and his use of intemperate language in the petition to characterize the decision of the respondent judge and the respondent judge himself. Tiongco's compliance with the Court's requirement was deemed unsatisfactory and entirely unacceptable. The Court ruled that Tiongco had exhibited gross disrespect and contempt for the Court by falsely and maliciously insinuating that the Court did not read the petition. his use of intemperate and scurrilous words and phrases against the respondent judge was also deemed disrespectful and contemptuous. Thus, Tiongco was found to have violated Canon 11 and diminished public confidence in the judiciary.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Tiongco committed a serious violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether a lawyer has the right to criticize the courts.

  3. Whether Atty. Jose B. Tiongco violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his other duties as a lawyer by making false and malicious insinuations against the Court and scurrilous characterizations of the respondent judge.

  4. Whether Atty. Jose B. Tiongco's actions are protected by the freedom of speech and expression.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Atty. Tiongco committed a serious violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that Atty. Tiongco's disrespectful and disparaging remarks against the court and its decision were a clear violation of his duty to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers. The Court emphasized that a lawyer's duty to the courts is closely intertwined with his oath to conduct himself with good fidelity to the courts and his duty to maintain respect due to the courts under Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the first canon of the Canons of Professional Ethics. The Court cited previous jurisprudence stating that a lawyer's duty to maintain respect towards the courts is not for the sake of the judges' temporary incumbency, but for the maintenance of the courts' supreme importance. (Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel)

  2. Yes, a lawyer has the right to criticize the courts. The Court recognized that a lawyer, as a citizen and an officer of the court, has the right to criticize the foibles of the courts and judges. It further emphasized that lawyers have the best opportunity to become conversant with the character and efficiency of judges, and that they have a duty to speak disparagingly if necessary. However, the Court also cautioned that such criticism should be bona fide and should not cross the bounds of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the lawyer's duty of respect to the courts and can subject the lawyer to disciplinary action. (In Re: Almacen)

  3. Yes, Atty. Jose B. Tiongco violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his other duties as a lawyer by making false and malicious insinuations against the Court and scurrilous characterizations of the respondent judge. His actions exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety and were characterized by anger and hate. He is ordered to pay a fine of P5,000 and warned of more severe consequences for future similar acts.

  4. No, Atty. Jose B. Tiongco's actions are not protected by the freedom of speech and expression. While freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is not an absolute right. Freedom of expression must be exercised responsibly, with the corresponding obligation to exercise it within the context of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice. Atty. Tiongco's actions undermined the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have a duty to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers. (Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • A lawyer's duty to the courts is closely related to his oath to conduct himself with good fidelity to the courts and his duty to maintain respect due to the courts under Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the first canon of the Canons of Professional Ethics. (Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer)

  • Lawyers are officers of the courts and have a duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel)

  • Lawyers have the right to criticize the foibles of the courts and judges as citizens and officers of the court. (In Re: Almacen)

  • Criticism of the courts should be bona fide and should not cross the bounds of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a violation of the lawyer's duty of respect to the courts. (In Re: Almacen)

  • Freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right and must be exercised responsibly.

  • The integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice is a fundamental public interest.

  • Lawyers have a duty to refrain from using unnecessary language that jeopardizes high esteem in courts or promotes distrust in judicial administration.

  • Lawyers should avoid the use of offensive, abusive, disrespectful, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements in pleadings or letters addressed to judges.