DELIA MURILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICOLAS SUPERABLE JR., RESPONDENT.

Administrative Case No. 341 involves administrative charges for
disbarment or disciplinary action filed by Delia Murillo against Atty.
Nicolas Superable, Jr. The present proceedings for contempt are merely
an incident arising from the said case.

In the administrative case, complainant Delia Murillo had written a
letter to the Chief Justice, dated April 1, 1958, alleging that
Superable employed her in his office, took advantage of her status as
an employee, made love to her and even proposed marriage; that although
she had informed him that she was a married woman, still he assured her
that he being a lawyer with the necessary connections, they could
arrange the matter and still marry each other; that he finally
convinced her and because he was her employer, she finally gave herself
up to him and they cohabited for some time, as a result of which
cohabitation, a child was born, “who was named Nicolas Superable III,
but that later on, he abandoned her, for which reason she filed the
charges above-mentioned.

Upon receipt of her letter, this Court ordered Superable to file his
answer. In the same, he admitted having employed Delia Murillo in his
office. He claims that when she applied for the job, she introduced
herself as an unmarried woman and because of that information, he
really made love to her and even proposed marriage, but that some time
in October, 1956, a friend of his informed and warned him that she was
not single but was married to one Mr. Rosario, although they were
living apart; that he also found out later that Delia had been
maintaining intimate relations with other men, such as a certain
Ricardo Macalla, an employee of the Tacloban Electric light and Ice
Company. He flatly denied that he was the father of the child named
Nicolas Superable III. In his answer Superable also voiced his
suspicion that the complaint of Delia Murillo was instigated by the
Tacloban Electric Light and Ice Company, which he had been attacking in
his newspaper, the Eagle, a weekly paper published in Tacloban, Leyte,
his attacks Slaving as their target the exorbitant rates charged by the
company, the harsh and unreasonable practice followed by the same, such
as, disconnecting the electric line to houses whose owners failed to
pay their accounts at the end of the month. Superable also presented in
support of his answer the affidavits of Enrique Militante and Segundino
Villablanca.

Apparently satisfied with his answer, this Tribunal by resolution of
May 26, 1958, dismissed the complaint of Delia Murillo for lack of
merit. However, this dismissal did not end the case. It had its sequel.

On May 19, 1958, about seven days before the dismissal of the
administrative case, Superable also wrote a letter to the Chief
Justice, requesting that some sort of action be taken against Dodong R.
Herrera, Noning Susaya and Frank Morada, all of Tacloban City, the
first being the owner, proprietor, publisher and editor of the tabloid
Eastern Star, a weekly published in Tacloban City, the second and third
being the business manager and circulation manager, respectively, of
said paper; Delia Murillo, the same complainant in the administrative
case, and Victoriano Chan, general manager of the Tacloban Electric
Light and Ice Company. The burden of the letter was that on May 17,
1958, that is to say, two days before his letter and about nine days
before the main case for disbarment or disciplinary action against him
was dismissed, the persons above-mentioned had published in the Eastern
Star the charges or complaint filed by Delia Murillo against him; that
said publication was a violation of the Rules of Court, which considers
private and confidential proceedings against an attorney; and that the
publication had caused him mental anguish and suffering, besmirched his
reputation and made him the object of public ridicule, besides reducing
his clientele in his practice of law, at the same time causing him
considerable embarrassment, both professionally and socially. Attached
to said letter of Superable was a copy of the issue of the Eastern Star
where the publication was made.

Acting upon the letter of Superable, this Tribunal by Resolution of
June 9, 1958, ordered the five persons, Dodong Herrera, Noning Susaya,
Frank Moraga, Delia Murillo and Victoriano Chan to show cause within
ten days from notice why they should not be declared in contempt of
court and punished accordingly. Pursuant to our resolution, the five
respondents filed their answer on July 8, 1958, the first three
admitting the publication but claiming that it was done only to help
the court in arriving at a sound and correct determination of the main
case, namely, the administrative charges against Superable; that the
news item or publication was devoid of any editorial comment; that they
were not aware of Section 10 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court. Delia
Murillo and Victoriano Chan denied any connection with the publication.
On July 10, 1958, Dodong Herrera, Noning Susaya and Frank Morada filed
a supplemental answer, and by our resolution of July 14, 1958,
complaining Superable was required to file a reply to the’ answer rid
supplemental answer, which he did on October 29, 1958.

The contempt incident was set for hearing on December 3, 1958. On
December 8, 1958, the five respondents filed a motion for postponement
of the hearing, and the following day, they filed a motion for the
appointment of a commissioner to hear the case, for the reason that it
required the reception of evidence from both parties, and that
considering the distance from Tacloban City, where they resided, to
Manila, it was convenient and proper to hold the hearing in Tacloban.

By resolution of December 5, 1958, we denied the motion for
postponement of hearing and both parties were given a period of twenty
days within which to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda
in lieu of oral argument. But upon consideration of the motion praying
for the appointment of a commissioner to receive evidence, the Court
resolved to give the movants twenty days within which to submit a
deposition.

On December 26, 1958, complainant Superable filed his memorandum
with several annexes, consisting mostly of issues of the newspaper
Eagle, which he edited and published, and of the Eastern Star, edited
and published by Dodong Herrera. On January 2, 1959, respondents filed
their memorandum.

On December 13, 1958, both parties filed with this Court a “Notice
to Take Deposition”, wherein they agreed that Judge Eugenio N. Brillo
of the Municipal Court of Tacloban City take the deposition mentioned
by us in our resolution of December 5, 1958. At the taking of the said
deposition before Judge Brillo on December 18, 1958, the parties and
their counsel appeared and several witnesses testified, such as,
Superable on his own behalf and his witnesses Segundo Villablanca and
Rene Tan, as well as Generoso (Dodong) Herrera and Hermogenes Susaya.
Documentary evidence was also submitted. The transcript of the
proceedings had before Judge Brillo, consisting of 69 pages, was filed
with us by Judge Brillo on January 2, 1959.

On January 20, 1959, Delia Murillo wrote a letter to the Chief
Justice, attaching thereto some affidavits, asking that the complaint
against Atty. Superable which, as already stated, had been dismissed,
be reinstated and that a formal investigation be made so that she may
be able to present her proof against him. By resolution of January 26,
1959, her request was denied.

We have carefully examined the different annexes and exhibits
involved, the transcript of the proceedings had before Judge Brillo and
the memoranda aforementioned. There is no question that pending
determination by this Court of the main case for disbarment and
disciplinary action against respondent Superable, on the basis of the
letter of Delia Murillo to the Chief Justice, already mentioned, said
charges were published in the Eastern Star, a weekly paper published,
in Tacloban City and of general circulation in the province of Leyte,
owned, published and edited by Dodong Herrera. In the issue of said
Eastern Star of May 17, 1958, on the first page of the same, appears
the headline—Lawyer Faces Disbarment Rap Filed by “Girl Friend”, and
under it the following:

“This is for lawyers only . . . but certainly not objectionable to non-lawyers and teenagers.

“In
what is considered to be the first disbarment case in the history of
the legal profession in the province of Leyte, the Supreme Court, in a
resolution dated April 16, 1958, ordered Atty. Nicolas Superable, Jr.,
editor of the EAGLE tabloid, to answer within ten days upon receipt of
said resolution the charges filed against him by one Delia Murillo of
this city, for alleged immoral and unethical conduct unbecoming a
lawyer.

“The Tribunal ordered Superable to answer the charges against him and ‘not to file a motion to dismiss.’

“In
a lengthy and pathetic letter to the Supreme Court, Miss Murillo
recounted her bitter experiences with Superable. She stated that while
she was employed as contributing editor of Superable’s EAGLE and at the
same time as Superable’s secretary of the ‘LEBAWA’ (an organization of
which Superable was the adviser) Superable made love to her and
promised to bring her to the altar of matrimony. Believing in the
sincerity of the lawyer’s promises. Delia said, she eventually accepted
him and ‘had given him all the liberties that ho asked of her as a
woman who had the misfortune of falling prey to his sugar-coated
promises and assuring words of devotion until she finally begot a boy
child who was incidentally named Nicolas Superable III.

“But
according to Miss Murillo, Superable allegedly turned ‘untrue’ to his
words and had abandoned her. Their child, she said, was disowned by the
alleged father.

“In an interview with the STAR, Miss Murillo
said that she will prosecute her case with all the means at her command
in order to avenge her name which was brutally besmirched by her former
‘friend’.

“Miss Murillo’s letter to the Supreme Court follows; “

‘The Honorable Chief Justice

Supreme Court, Manila

Dear Sir;

‘Not
knowing where to go, I have, addressed myself to you a very personal
matter but which, I believe, affects the public interest, concerning as
it does a member of the bar, Atty. Nicolas Superable, Jr., of Tacloban
City.

‘Briefly, here are the facts concerning the personal matter I am referring to.

‘Atty.
Nicolas Superable, Jr. employed me in the office of “The Eagle”, a
tabloid paper of which he was the editor. As an employee in said
office, he gave me a press pass designating me as contributing editor.
He also made me secretary of the ‘LEBAWA’, an organization of which lie
was the adviser,

‘Sometime in August 1956, probably taking
advantage of our employer-employee relations, he proposed to me. Of
course, I told him that I could not accept him because I was married
already, although my husband and I had been separated since 1951
without the benefit of communication and without my knowing his
whereabouts. In spite of this, however, he insisted that lie loved me
and he assured me that in a matter of time, we could legally marry each
other. On the strength of his assurances and, honestly believing in the
sincerity of his purpose, I eventually accepted him giving him all the
liberties that he asked of me as a woman who had the misfortune of
falling prey to his sugar-coated promises and assuring words of
devotion.

“For sometime, we cohabited, and going all the way
as he had asked me to, as proof of my deep love for him, we finally
begot one boy child on August 8, 1957 whom we incidentally named
Nicolas Superable III.

‘But, alas! he has proved untrue to
his words and has abandoned me and our child, giving us only a token
support of the measly sum of P57 since August, 1957 after my delivery
up to December 1957. And, to cap it all, as if to add insult to injury,
lie now has the temerity to disown the very child he has begotten of me.

‘Now
sir, perhaps I shall be overstating the obvious if I say that the
conduct of Atty. Superable is highly unbecoming a member of the legal
profession. Through your good offices I, therefore, humbly beseech the
Honorable. Court to take some sort of disciplinary action against the
oft-mentioned member of the Philippine Bar, Atty. Nicolas Superable,
Jr. so that the same may yet serve as a strong moral deterrent to other
members thereof whose immoral and unscrupulous bent may equal, if not
transcend, that of the aforesaid attorney. Perhaps, it may also help
purge the legal profession of some undesirable members who are more of
a liability than an asset to this noble profession.

‘In closing, I wish to express my appreciation for whatever action you will take in this matter.

In our opinion, said publication violates the provision’s of Rule 128, Section 10, which reads as follows:

“SEC. 10. Confidential—Proceedings against
attorneys shall be private and confidential, except that the final
order of the court shall be made public as In other cases coming before
the court.”

As early as January 27, 1922, this Tribunal had promulgated a resolution providing:

“That all proceedings looking to the suspension and
disbarment of lawyers, and all proceedings looking to the suspension or
removal of judges of first instance shall be considered confidential in
nature until the final disposition of the matter.” (Malcolm: Legal and
Judicial Ethics, p. 94).

The purpose of this legal provision is “to enable the Supreme Court
to make its investigation, free from any extraneous influence or
interference, as well as to protect the personal and professional
reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of
disgruntled, vindictive, and, irresponsible clients and litigants.”
(Moran: Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III, 1957 ed., p. 676; In
Re Abistado, 57 Phil., 668, Santiago vs. Calvo, 48, Phil.,
919.) The rule is also protective of the press for even a verbatim copy
of the complaint against an attorney in a newspaper might be
actionable. (Santiago vs. Calvo, 48 Phil., 919.) The rule,
was, enforced against editors and reporters in a number of cases, (In
re Lozano, 54 Phil., 801; In re Abistado, supra.)

According to the evidence before us, Delia Murillo gave Herrera a
copy of her charges or complaint against Superable and asked him to
publish the same in his paper, the Eastern Star. It is not exactly
known what her motive was in wanting the publication made, but there is
reason to believe that she wanted the community, specially the readers
of the Eastern Star, to know the charges she was filing against Atty.
Superable. She must have realized that her case could be decided and
the relief sought granted, only by the Supreme Court, and that is why
she addressed her letter of complaint to the Chief Justice. She knew
she could not obtain this relief from anyone else, much less the
newspaper or the readers thereof, and yet she wanted her charges to be
made known to them. Evidently, she just wanted to embarrass Atty.
Superable by letting the public know what kind of a lawyer and employer
he was, according to her complaint. In other words, her motives for
asking for the publication were not exactly good and above board.
However, considering her station in life and ignorance of the
consequences of her act, she deserves some consideration and leniency.

Not so with Generoso Herrera. It seems that he also had an axe to
grind against Superable. The two were editing and publishing rival
newspapers which must have been competing with each other for
circulation, subscription and advertisement. Herrera and Victoriano
Chan were good friends. So, when Superable in his paper, the Eagle,
attacked the Tacloban Electric Light and Ice Plant Company, managed by
Chan, Herrera resented it and tried to defend his friend. Then we have
the rivalry between Herrera and Superable in the election for officers
of the Leyte Press Club. Herrera beat his rival and he was elected
president of the club. So, when Delia Murillo gave him a copy of her
complaint against Superable and asked if it could be published in his
paper. The Eastern Star, Herrera was more than willing to accomodate
her. The publication was not a simple, innocent and verbatim copy of
the complaint, but it was embellished with a headline on the front
page, and some comment not favorable to Superable. Herrera as owner,
proprietor, publisher and editor of a newspaper, must have known the
implications and consequences flowing from a publication of charges
against a member of the legal profession. Even assuming that, as he
claims, he was not aware of the provisions of the law which consider
confidential the investigation of charges against a lawyer, which claim
we are not quite ready to accept, nevertheless, he should have known
better than to rush said charges into print. For this reason, his case
is more serious than that of Delia Murillo.

In conclusion, we find both of them guilty of contempt of court.
They are punished by the payment of a fine of ONE HUNDRED PESOS
(P100.00) for Delia Murillo, and FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) for
Generoso Herrera, to be turned into the office of the clerk of court
within a period of fifteen days from receipt of notice, with the
admonition that if they fail to comply, further and more drastic action
by the Court will be necessary.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.