SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD et al vs.

CLORIBEL


FACTS:

First Contempt case:

The Supreme Court rendered a decision against MacArthur International Minerals
Corp and in their third Motion for Reconsideration, Attys. Vicente Santiago and John Beltran
Sotto made use of language that are disrespectful and contemptuous to the Court like "it
seems many of our judicial authorities believe they are chosen messengers of God", "corrupt
in its face" and insinuating favoritism and partisanship of the members of the Court, notable
Chief Justice Concepcion and Justice Castro due to alleged interest in the case (Castro's
brother works for one of the parties). 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 the motion was already prepared by
Santiago when he took the case as was verified by Morton Meads, an employee from
MacArthur.

ISSUE: Whether the lawyers should be cited in contempt?

HELD:

1st case:

Yes. The language employed by Santiago and Sotto degrades the administration of
justice which transgresses Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as well as Sec. 20 (f)
of Rule 138 of the RoC which states that "a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession". They are also expected to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers but their acts resulted in the
contrary and are intended to create an atmosphere of distrust. The inadvertence of
Santiago's use of words can't be used as a shield to absolve him of any misdeeds.

2nd case:

Yes. Even if the idea of the language used in the 4th MR came from Meads, both
Santiago and Caling should've adhered to Canon 16 of the Code of Legal Ethics wherein "a
lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from doing those
things which a lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct
towards courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such
wrongdoing, the lawyer should have terminated their relation". Santiago is also liable here
since Caling's representation didn't divest him of his capacity as counsel for MacArthur.