In re Complaint of Mrs. Rotilla Marcos against Judge F.

Marcos, 360 SCRA 539 (2001)

FACTS: Mrs. Rotilla Marcos, wife of Judge Ferdinand Marcos, and her children wrote a letter to Chief Justice
Narvasa alleging, among others, that ever since Mr. Marcos was appointed as a judge of the RTC Cebu City,
they have only been receiving a minimal amount which was insufficient for their education and for their
sustenance; that they were made to believe that he was only receiving a small remuneration as an RTC Judge;
that he was enjoying his extra-ordinary allowance, local and city allowances, bonuses, amelioration pays, and
14th month pays; that he even got his second quincena of November direct in Manila when he was enjoying his
one-week leave of absence with his mistress.
The case remained suspended until the Honorable Chief Justice Davide, Jr. reported to the Court En Banc, the
scandalous incident he witnessed at the Fun Run sponsored by the Philippine Judges Association. According to
CJ Davide, a woman who was reported to be Judge Marcos’ querida accompanied him. Judge Marcos and the
querida joined the Judges at the temporary place reserved for the Judges and during the latter's breakfast thereat
were seated near each other. Chief Justice Davide then pulled Judge Marcos aside to validate the facts about the
latter’s illicit relationship with the woman. The latter admitted, among other things, that he had been living with
the woman, Mae Tacaldo, for three (3) years already, and that he was separated from his wife. Judge Marcos
defense was that his actions should be excused and mitigated since his wife was also guilty of immorality.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Marcos was wanting of moral integrity by keeping a mistress
RULING: Yes. Keeping a mistress is certainly not an act one would expect of a judge who is expected to possess
the highest standard of morality and decency. Moreover, respondent's posture that Mrs. Marcos is also guilty of
immorality does not excuse nor even mitigate his actions. It is respondent's private action that is being investigated
not his wife's. Bringing Ms. Tacaldo to public functions was not in good taste considering that Judge Marcos was
still very much married even if he and his wife Rotilla were already living separately. He had no right to flaunt
Maydelane Tacaldo as if she was his wife. This conduct is certainly unbecoming of a judge whose conduct must
at all times be beyond reproach.
Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos has demonstrated himself to be wanting of moral integrity. He has violated the code
of Judicial Conduct which requires every judge to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence
and to avoid the appearance of impropriety in all activities as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The charge of immorality proven against respondent judge demonstrates his unfitness
to remain in office and continue to discharge the functions and duties of a judge. Having tarnished the image of
the Judiciary, respondent must be meted out the severest form of disciplinary sanction - dismissal from the service.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City is DISMISSED from the service, with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment to
any public office including government owned or controlled corporations, and forfeiture of his retirement benefits,
if he is entitled to any.
Guerrero vs. Villamor, 179 SCRA 355 (1989)

FACTS: Consequent to the dismissal of the Criminal Cases for Qualified Theft filed by George Carlos against
Gloria Naval by respondent Judge Adriano R. Villamor, herein petitioner George D. Carlos, thru his lawyer and
herein co-petitioner Antonio T. Guerrero filed an action for damages against respondent judge for knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment in the aforesaid consolidated criminal cases.

Instead of answering the complaint, Judge Villamor issued an order declaring Carlos and his lawyer, Antonio
Guerrero guilty of direct contempt for degrading the respect and dignity of the court through the use of derogatory
and contemptuous language before the court; defiling the court with abusive, offensive and disrespectful language
in their complaint for Damages. To stop the coercive force of the Order of Contempt issued by respondent judge,
petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction or restraining order. It is also contended that
respondent stands liable for serious misconduct and ignorance of the law for adjudging complainants guilty of
direct contempt despite their non-presence in court. They assert that no direct contempt could have been
committed judge in the complaint for damages because whatever was mentioned therein was not made "before"
respondent judge while in session or in recess from judicial proceedings or in any matter involving the exercise
of judicial function of the Court while it is at work on a case before it. SC issued a restraining order against
respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the language employed in the complaint for Damages is contemptuous

RULING: No. The statement of petitioner are merely descriptive of his plaintiff’s cause of action based on his
reaction to what he perceived as a willful infliction of injury on him by de the defendant judge. Strong words
were used to lay stress on the gravity and degree of moral anguish suffered by petitioner Carlos as a result of the
dismissal of the subject criminal cases to justify the award of damages being sought. Moreover, use of
disrespectful or contemptuous language against a particular judge in pleadings presented in another court or
proceeding is indirect, not direct, contempt as it is not tantamount to a misbehavior in the presence of or so near
a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. Furthermore, the Order of Direct Contempt was issued
without charge and hearing which should be set aside for being null and void.

Be that as it may, lawyers, on the other hand, should bear in mind their basic duty "to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and (to) insist on similar conduct by others." This respectful
attitude towards the court is to be observed, "not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office,
but for the maintenance of its supreme importance." And it is "through a scrupulous preference for respectful
language that a lawyer best demonstrates his observance of the respect due to the courts and judicial officers ...

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Order of Direct Contempt of Court
dated December 11, 1987 is declared NULL and VOID. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on March 22,
1988 is hereby made permanent.

Plus Builders, Inc. vs. Revilla, Jr. 578 SCRA 432 (2009)

FACTS: A decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of Plus Builders,
Inc. and against the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s
clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the
way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to pursue
his client’s lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court
processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions
for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the
decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law holding themselves
out as his partners/associates in the law firm. Respondent is then found guilty of gross misconduct and is
SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law to which he filed a motion for reconsideration.

Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. The courses of action he took were not
meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision but were based on his serious study, research and
experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB
case. He believes that the courses of action he took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the
rights and interests of his clients. Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for unauthorized practice
of law, he humbly submits that there was actually no sufficient evidence to prove the same.

ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of misusing court processes

RULING: Yes. A lawyer’s devotion to his clients cause not only requires but also entitles him to deploy every
honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to
enable the latter’s cause to succeed. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth and
justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by
misusing court processes.

However, the Court also knows how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the
appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondents length of service,
acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and
equitable considerations, and respondents advanced age, among other things, which have varying significance in
the Courts determination of the imposable penalty. Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondents
motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, we are persuaded to extend a degree
of leniency towards him. We find the suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this case.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the letter-request dated August 15, 2008 is NOTED. Respondents Motion
for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated September 13, 2006 is
hereby MODIFIED in that respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
effective upon receipt of this Resolution. Respondent is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt
of said Resolution within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.