CODE OF PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILTY

4 Fundamental Concepts
in Ch. 4

FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS
10: TRUTH

11: RESPECT

12: JUSTICE

What it is vs. What it is not

13:
PROPRIETY

10: TRUTH VS. FALSITY

ful

Falsit
y & misleading

Quoting properly*

Misquotation

observance of
rules of procedure

misuse of rules of
procedure

Truth

Case Illustration:
* The Insular Life Assurance
Co. Employees Association vs.
Insular Life Assurance Co. (37
SCRA 244)
[Verbatim Quotation]

11: RESPECT VS. DISREPECT

Respect**

Dis
respect
Attire

Punctuality
Language***
Illmotive attribution to
the Judge

** Zaldivar vs. Gonzales (166 SCRA 316)

[Criticizing the Court]
Zaldivar vs Gonzales
(GR NO. 79690-707)

FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was then Tanodbayan who was investigating the
case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The
Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him
to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on
the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta
the rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is
difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez
to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were true; that he was only
exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out
where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not less
than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow on Zaldivar and to
not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and
call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements
necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such
statements constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very
clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of
administration of justice in the country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems
unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is
not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and
accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who owes
duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the

*** Montecillo vs. Gica (60 SCRA 235)

[Contemptuous language to CA and SC]
Montecillo vs Del Mar

60 SCRA 234 Legal Ethics Lawyers Duty to the Courts Contemptuous

Language

Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty. Quiricodel

Marrepresented Montecillo and he successfully defended Monteceillo in the
lower court.DelMar was even able to win their counterclaim thus the lower
court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudgedmoraldamages.
Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the
latter court reversed the same. Atty. Del Mar then filed a motion for
reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of Appeals
judges intimating that he thinks the CA justices knowingly rendered an
unjust decision and judgment has been rendered through negligence
and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.
The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using
suchtonewith the court. Del Mar then filed a second MFR where he again
made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he
should not be punished for contempt.
Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he
sent to the President of the Philippines asking the said justices to consider
the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del Mar then
filed a civil case against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower
court but the civil case was eventually dismissed by reason of a

Case Illustration:
*** In Re: Almacen (60 SCRA
235)
[EXCEPTION: Criticizing the
Court is OK as long as it does
not spill over the walls of
decency and propriety]

12: JUSTICE VS. INJUSTICE

(adequate)

Justice
Preparation
stice

Multiple actions
for the same cause
Inappropriate
extentions ****
Undue delay
Talking to
Witness

Inju

Case Illustration:
**** Casals vs. Cui (52 SCRA
58)
[Asking for extension]

13: PROPRIETY VS.

IMPROPRIETY
Proprie

Impr

opriety
Extraordinary
Attention,
Hospitality,
Familiarity
Inviting
Interference by

Thank You and God Bless