SBC-585. February 29, 1984
EMILIA E. ANDRES, COMPLAINANT, VS. STANLEY R. CABRERA, RESPONDENT.
GUERRERO, J.:
above-entitled case, respondent Stanley R. Cabrera, a successful Bar
examinee in 1977 against whom petition had been filed for denial of his
admission as member of the Bar for lack of good moral character and for
his proclivity to filing baseless, malicious, and unfounded cases, was
found guilty of contempt of this Court for “(b)y his improper conduct in
the use of highly disrespectful, insolent language, respondent has
tended to degrade the administration of justice; he has disparaged the
dignity and brought to disrepute the integrity and authority of the
Court” and was sentenced to pay within ten days from notice a fine of
P500.00 or imprisonment of 50 days. (See 94 SCRA 512.)
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 9, 1980
which We denied on March 6, 1980 and further required respondent to pay
within five (5) days from notice the aforesaid fine of P500.00.
The fine was thereafter paid on March 14, 1980 under SC Official Receipt
No. 5369050X. On July 16, 1980, respondent submitted an Urgent Motion
for Admission to the Bar “in view of the foregoing (payment) and for
mercy” which We denied on August 12, 1980 since the investigation
against the said respondent was still pending before the Legal
Investigator of the Court, Atty. Victor J. Sevilla.
Another Urgent Motion for Early Resolution dated August 9, 1980 was
again filed with the Court by respondent, calling attention to the fact
that the case has been pending since April, 1977. We noted said motion
on September 16, 1980.
Meanwhile, respondent manifested to the Court in still another Urgent
Motion for Admission to the Bar dated September 25, 1981 that
“respondent has amended his ways and has conformed to the use of polite,
courteous, and civil language as can be gleaned from (his) urgent
motion for admission to the Bar dated July 16, 1980 and (his) urgent
motion for early resolution dated August 29, 1980 filed with this
Honorable Court; and that undersigned respondent reiterates his sincere
apologies to this Honorable Court and its Legal Investigator for all his
actuations since this case was filed in 1977; x x x that undersigned
respondent was acquitted by Judge Priscila Mijares of the City Court of
Manila for estafa wherein Lourdes C. Perea was the complaining witness
as hereto authenticated by Annexes A, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and
made an integral part of this motion.” Respondent prayed that “for
humanitarian considerations, considering that undersigned respondent has
seven children, a wife, and a widowed mother to support,” he be allowed
to take his oath of office as a lawyer and be admitted to the Bar.
Respondent then wrote a letter dated August 25, 1982 to the Chief
Justice, reiterating his sincere apologies to the Court for all his
actions which culminated in his conviction for contempt and prayed for
help to enable him “to uplift the living conditions of (his) seven
children considering that up to this date (he is) a squatter beside the
railroad tracks living in abject poverty.” The aforementioned letter was
noted by this Court on September 16, 1982.
In the meantime, the second case, “SBC-571 (Lourdes C. Perea vs. Stanley
R. Cabrera)” was ordered archived in view of the resolutions in the
first case “SBC-585 (Emilia E. Andres vs. Stanley R. Cabrera)” denying,
among others, respondent’s admission to the Bar, as per Our Resolution
dated September 13, 1979 in SBC-571.
On February 21, 1983, respondent wrote a second letter to the Chief
Justice, once more reiterating his sincere apologies to the Court and
begged for mercy “to the end that he be allowed to take his oath of
office as a lawyer and enable him to give his children a bright future.”
In Our Resolution of June 14, 1983, We resolved to deny the aforesaid
letter/petition.
On July 5, 1983, there was received in this Court a letter from one
Nerida V. Cabrera with address at 732 Int. 4, Bagumbayan, Bacood, Sta.
Mesa, M.M., wife of the respondent herein, addressed to the Chief
Justice, appealing for kindness and humanitarian consideration to allow
her husband to take his oath as a lawyer so that he can provide food and
shelter for their eight children because he is unemployed. She also
apologized for her husband for his disrespectful language to the Court
and prayed that she be allowed to apologize personally to the Chief
Justice and to the Supreme Court for her husband.
We noted the said letter of Nerida V. Cabrera and required said
respondent to appear personally before this Court on Tuesday, August 23,
1983 at 11:00 o’clock a.m. The records further disclose that a
handwritten letter by Nerida Cabrera dated August 1, 1983 attaching a
picture of the family of respondent and their eight children and a
similar handwritten letter by Presentacion Vda. de Cabrera, mother of
the respondent, were sent to the Chief Justice. Notices of the hearing
set for August 23, 1983 were given to the parties.
At the said hearing, Atty. Rhodora Javier appeared and argued for the
complainant Emilia E. Andres in SBC-585 (Emilia E. Andres vs. Stanley R.
Cabrera). Stanley Cabrera appeared in his own behalf and answered the
questions asked by the Court. Atty. Victor Sevilla, Legal Investigator
of this Court, who investigated SBC-585, also answered the questions
asked by the Court. The Court then resolved to require respondent
Cabrera to submit within five (5) days from date (1) letters of apology
to the Court, to Atty. Victor Sevilla, to complainant Emilia E. Andres,
and to Fiscal Leonardo Arguelles for the contumacious and vile language
contained in his pleadings, and (2) certifications of good behavior and
exemplary conduct from the Parish Priest and from the Barangay Captain
of the place where he resides. Thereafter, the petition to take the
lawyer’s oath shall be considered submitted for resolution.
On August 25, 1983, respondent forwarded to the Chief Justice his letter
of apology and through him to all the Associate Justices of the Court
“for all (his) disrespectful acts and utterances thru (his) pleadings
against the Honorable Supreme Court” and promised never to commit the
same. He enclosed therewith the Letter of Apology to Atty. Victor
Sevilla, Legal Investigator of the Court, Letter of Apology to Atty.
Emilia E. Andres, Legal Division, MOLE, complainant in SBC-585, Letter
of Apology to Fiscal Leonardo Arguelles, Manila City Hall, Certification
of Good Moral Character from Rev. Fr. Eduardo A. Cruz, Parish Priest,
Our Lady of Fatima Parish, Fatima Village, Bacood, Lubiran St., Sta.
Mesa, Manila, and Certification of Good Moral Character from Barangay
Captain Emiliano C. Masilungan of Barangay 604, Zone 60, Sta. Mesa,
Manila.
The authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension,
disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law is vested in the
Supreme Court by the Constitution. (Art. X, Sec. 5(5). This power is
indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. It is judicial in
the sense that discretion is used in its exercise. The function
requires (1) previously established rules and principles, (2) concrete
facts, whether past or present, affecting determinate individuals, and
(3) decision as to whether these facts are governed by the rules and
principles; in effect, a judicial function of the highest degree. (In
re: Cunanan, et al., 94 Phil. 534).
This power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not, however, an arbitrary
and despotic one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from
passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but it is the duty of the
court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion.
(In re: Crum, 204 Pac. 948; 103 Ore. 297; 1 Thornton on
Attorneys-at-Law, Sec. 2, cited in Moran, Comments on the Rules of
Court, Vol. 6, pp. 204, 205).
On the other hand, the power to punish persons for contempt is inherent
in all courts and essential to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings and to the enforcement of their lawful orders and decisions
(Montalban vs. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1). A lawyer who uses intemperate,
abusive, abrasive or threatening language betrays disrespect to the
court, disgraces the Bar and invites the exercise by the court of its
disciplinary power. (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel,
L-27072, Jan. 9, 1970, 31 SCRA 1; In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562; Montecillo
vs. Gica, 60 SCRA 234). Such power, however, should be exercised on
the preservative and not on the vindictive principle and on the
corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment. (Weigal vs.
Shuster, 11 Phil. 340; Villavicencio vs. Lucban, 39 Phil. 778; People
vs. Marcos, 70 Phil. 468, 480; Victorino vs. Espiritu, 5 SCRA 653;
Reliance Procoma, Inc. vs. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corp., 57 SCRA 370;
Fontelera vs. Amores, 70 SCRA 37). Furthermore, contempt power should
not be utilized for mere satisfaction of natural inclination to strike
back at a party who has shown lesser respect to the dignity of the
court. (Royeca vs. Animas, 71 SCRA 1).
In the case at bar, respondent having paid the fine imposed upon him for
direct contempt against the integrity and dignity of this Court, having
apologized in repeated motions filed before this Court for his
disrespectful language and personally reiterated at the hearing
conducted herein, and has furthermore complied with the Court’s
directives contained in Our Resolution dated August 23, 1983 by
submitting his letters of apology to the Chief Justice and to the
members of this Court, to Atty. Victor Sevilla, Legal Investigator of
the Court, to complainant Atty. Emilia E. Andres, to Fiscal Leonardo
Arguelles, and Certifications of Good Moral Character from his parish
priest, Rev. Fr. Eduardo A. Cruz, and his Barangay Captain, Emiliano C.
Masilungan of Barangay 604, Zone 60, Sta. Mesa, Manila where respondent
resides, We are convinced by these actions that he has become
respectful, sincere and honest, thereby evincing that good moral
character required of a person who may be admitted to the practice of
law.
The pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and the future of
respondent’s family with eight young children, althou self-serving, are
strong human factors in considering judiciously and wisely the motion of
respondent which in effect would allow him to start on a professional
career as a lawyer that would certainly mean a bright future for himself
and his family, for otherwise the discretion with which the Court may
admit qualified personal to the practice of law may be clouded with
vindictiveness and retaliation which is not the basic purpose of the
Court’s inherent power to punish for contempt.
The dignity and authority of the Court has been maintained and preserved
when the Court punished respondent for his contumacious conduct and he
willingly and promptly paid the penalty therefor. The preservative and
corrective purpose of the contempt power of this Court has already been
accomplished and achieved that to continue denying his plea for
forgiveness and mercy in his behalf and his family is not only to
prolong the agony of his misconduct which he has suffered for seven long
years since 1977 when he passed the Bar examinations but also would
appear to be despotic and arbitrary. We hold that respondent has
expiated enough for his misdeed and may now be allowed to take the
lawyer’s oath and thus become a more useful member of society and of the
law profession.
In SBC-571, since the charge against respondent for estafa which is the
basis of the petition for disqualification filed by complainant Lourdes
C. Perea, has been dismissed and respondent acquitted in Criminal Case
No. 015429-CV by the City Court of Manila, Branch VII, the same is
hereby dismissed.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, respondent Stanley R. Cabrera is hereby allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, and Relova, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., Entertains some reservations about the respondent’s
ability or willingness to maintain his changed disposition conduct but
concurs in the decision to give him a chance to be a member of the bar
in good standing.