SC CIRCULAR NO. 2, March 13, 1987

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the pertinent portion of the Resolution of the Court En Banc,
promulgated on March 12, 1987, “In the Matter of Proceedings for
Disciplinary Action against Atty. Wenceslao Laureta, and of Contempt
Proceedings against Eva Maravilla-Ilustre in G.R. No. 68635, entitled
‘Eva Maravilla-Ilustre vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.’ “:

“We likewise find that Atty. Laureta has committed acts
unbecoming an officer of the Court for his stance of dangling threats of
bringing the matter to the ‘proper forum’ to effect a change of the
Court’s adverse Resolution; for his lack of respect for and exposing to
public ridicule the two highest Courts of the land by challenging in bad
faith their integrity and claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust
judgments (Montecillo vs. Gica, 60 SCRA 234 [1974]); for authoring, or
at the very least, assisting and/or abetting and/or not preventing the
contemptuous statements, conduct, acts and malicious charges of his
client, respondent Ilustre, notwithstanding his disclaimer that he had
absolutely nothing to do with them, which we find disputed by the facts
and circumstances of record as above stated; for totally disregarding
the facts and circumstances and legal considerations set forth in this
Court’s Resolutions of the First Division and en banc, as the Tribunal of
last resort; for making it appear that the Justices of this Court and
other respondents before the Tanodbayan are charged with ‘graft and
corruption’ when the complaint before the Tanodbayan, in essence, is a
tirade from disgruntled litigant and a defeated counsel in a case that
has been brought thrice before this Court, and who would readily accept
anything but the soundness of the judgments of the Courts concerned, all
with the manifest intent to bring the Justices of this Court and of the
Court of Appeals into disrepute and to subvert public confidence in the
Courts.

“Atty. Laureta should be reminded that his first duty is not to
his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his
client’s success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and
must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. For like the
Court itself, ‘a lawyer is an instrument or agency to advance the ends
of justice.’ (Surigao Mineral Conservation Board vs. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1
[1970]; Castañeda vs. Ago, 65 SCRA 505 [1975]).

” x x x Viewed in the light of the demonstrated persistence of
grave misconduct and undermining public confidence in the honor and
integrity of the Court and its members (at a time when the Court is
exerting every effort to regain public confidence in our courts after
the trauma and debacle undergone by them in the past regime), the Court
shall impose upon him an indefinite suspension, leaving it to him to
prove at some future and opportune time, that he shall have once again
regained the fitness to be allowed to resume the practice of law as an
officer of the Courts. (In re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562)

“ACCORDINGLY, (1) x x x      x x x

“(2) Atty. Wenceslao Laureta is found guilty of grave
professional misconduct, rendering him unfit to continue to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an
attorney, and is hereby suspended from the practice of law until further
Orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.

“Let copies of this Resolution be circulated to all Courts of
the country for their information and guidance, and spread in the
personal record of Atty. Wenceslao Laureta.”

Manila, March 13, 1987.