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

 Lawyers First Duty is to the CourtsA lawyer is an officer of the court, he occupies a quasi-judicial office with a tripartite oblgiation to
the courts, to the public ,and to his clients. However, the public duties should take precedence over the
private duties. Where duties to the courts conflict with the duties to his clients, the latter must yield and
the former shall prevail by all means.

Respect Due to the Courts and Judicial Officers Must be Maintained:

Lawyers must not be respectful not only in their actions but also in their use of language whether in
oral arguments or in pleadings.

Disrespectful acts and language are contemptuous

Lawyers must also exert efforts that others, including their own clients and witnesses, shall deal with
the courts and judicial officers with respect

In case of complaints, it must be pursued within the bounds of the law, without promoting distrust
and prejudicing the integrity of the administration of justice.

Disrespect to Judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch of government to which they belong, as
well as to the state which has instituted the judicial system.

A lawyer shall not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard toward the court which is
essential in the administration of justice

In re: Sotto
82 Phil 595
1949

FACTS:
This is a proceeding for contempt of our court against the respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto,
who was required by their Court to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt to
court for having issued a written statement in connection with the decision of this Court in In re
Angel Parazo for contempt of court, as published in the Manila Times and other daily newspapers
of the locality.
As author of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No. 53.) interpreted by the Supreme Court
in the case of Angel Parazo, reporter of a local daily, who now has to suffer 30 days
imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge the source of a news published in his paper, I regret to
say that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but that it is once more
putting in evidence the incompetency of narrow mindedness o the majority of its members, In
the wake of so many mindedness of the majority deliberately committed during these last years,
I believe that the only remedy to put an end to so much evil, is to change the members of the
Supreme Court. To his effect, I announce that one of the first measures, which as its objects the
complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. As it is now constituted, a constant peril to liberty
and democracy. It need be said loudly, very loudly, so that even the deaf may hear: the Supreme
Court very of today is a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of Justice of those memorable
times of Cayetano Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were
the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary.

In his answer, Sotto does not deny the authenticity of the statement. He contends that SC has
no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and that SC can only impose fines and
imprisonment by virtue of a law, to be promulgated by Congress and approved by the Chief
Executive. Sotto also alleges that the statements he made was in the exercise of the freedom of
speech guaranteed by the Constitution and that he had no intention of offending any of the
majority of the honorable members of the SC. The case was set for hearing or oral argument but it
was postponed since Sotto did not appear at the date set for hearing, the case was submitted for
decision.

ISSUE: SHOULD SOTTO BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT?

HELD: YES

RATIO DECIDENDI:
The Rules promulgated by this court does not punish an act which was not punishable under the law and the
inherent powers of the court as an act of contempt. That the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts
of superior statue, is a doctrine or principle uniformly accepted and applied by the courts of last resort. The power
of inflicting punishment upon persons guilty of contempt of court may be regarded as an essential element of
judicial authority, it is possessed as a part of the judicial authority granted to courts created by the Constitution.
Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the
court in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the court
and contribute to the correction of an error if committed. Had Sotto limited himself to statement that the SC
decision is wrong or that our construction of the intention of the law is not correct because it is different from
what he, as proponent of the original bill, had intended, his criticism might in that case be tolerated.
However, Sotto did not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the Parazo case, which is still pending.
He not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the presentation of a bill reorganizing the
Supreme Court and reducing the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the members of Justices
from eleven to seven, so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo case, who according
to his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final decision of said case by this
Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice. Sotto also attacked the honesty and integrity
of this Court.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last bulwark to which the Filipino people
may obtain relief for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people
lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of the SC and believe that they cannot expect
justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos
might be the result.

Guerrero vs Villamor
179 SCRA 355
(1989)

FACTS:
Petitioner George D. Carlos, thru his lawyer and herein co-petitioner Antonio T. Guerrero
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City an action for damages against respondent
judge for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in the aforesaid consolidated criminal
cases. The complaint and summons were served on respondent judge. On the following day,
the respondent judge issued an Order of Direct Contempt of Court against herein petitioners,
finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct contempt and sentencing them both to
imprisonment of five (5) days and a fine of P500.00 for degrading the respect and dignity of
the court through the use of derogatory and contemptuous language before the court.
To stop the coercive force of the Order of Contempt issued by respondent judge,
petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction or restraining
order. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining and restraining
respondent Judge Adriano R. Villamor from enforcing his order of Direct Contempt of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alleged derogatory language employed in the Civil Case complaint
constitutes direct contempt.
HELD:
NO. Petition was granted. Order of Direct Contempt declared NULL and VOID. The Temporary
Restraining Order is made permanent.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Supreme Court sustained petitioners contention that the alleged derogatory language
employed in the complaint did not constitute direct contempt but may only, if at all, constitute
indirect contempt subject to defenses that may be raised by said, petitioners in the proper
proceedings. Stress must be placed on the fact that the subject pleading was not submitted to
respondent judge nor in the criminal cases from which the contempt order was issued but was
filed in another court presided by another judge and involving a separate action, the civil case
for damages against respondent judge.
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.

Rule 11.01 A Lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

To maintain the dignity and respectability of the legal profession.
Rule 11.02 A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings
Punctuality It is a Lawyers duty both to the courts, the public, and his clients to
be punctual in attendance and to be concise and direct in the trial and disposition of
cases. (As mentioned in the Lawyers Oath: shall delay no man for money or
malice. For a lack of puntuality delays the process and interferes with the speedy
administration of justice
For a failure to appear on time in a pre-trial conference may result in the non-suit
or the dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute or in the declaration of
the defendant as in default.
A lawyer may also be held in contempt of court for being late in hearings or trials
of cases