EMILIA E. ANDRES, PETITIONER, VS. STANLEY R. CABRERA, RESPONDENT.

In a resolution of this Court dated October 11, 1979, respondent
Stanley R. Cabrera, a successful bar examinee in 1977 and against whom a
petition to disqualify him from membership in the Bar is pending in this Court
in the above-entitled case, was required to show cause why he should not be
cited and punished for contempt of court.

The above citation for contempt against the respondent was issued
by the Court following the persistence of the respondent in the use of abusive
and vituperative language despite the Court’s admonition implicit in Our
previous resolution of June 5, 1979 deferring the oath-taking of respondent
pending showing that he has amended his ways and conformed to the use of
polite, courteous and civil language.

The petition to disqualify respondent from admission to the Bar
was filed by Atty. Emilia E. Andres, Legal Officer II
in the Office of the Minister, Ministry of Labor on the ground of lack of good
moral character as shown by his propensity in using vile, uncouth, and uncivil
language to the extent of being reprehensively malicious and criminally
libelous and likewise, for his proclivity in filing baseless, malicious and
unfounded criminal cases.

It appears that Atty. Emilia E. Andres,
designated as Special Investigator to investigate the administrative charge
filed by Mrs. Presentacion R. Cabrera, mother of the
respondent, against one, Atty. Benjamin Perez, former Hearing Officer of the
defunct Workmen’s Compensation Unit, Region IV, Manila, for alleged dishonesty,
oppression and discourtesy, recommended the dismissal of the charge even as the
records of two relevant Workmen’s Compensation cases were not produced at the
hearing, notwithstanding the request of the respondent.  When the Minister of Labor dismissed the
charges upon Atty. Andres’ recommendation, respondent filed with the City
Fiscal of Manila criminal charges of infidelity in the custody of documents,
falsification of public documents, and violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act against the investigator.

Supporting these criminal charges are affidavits of respondent
Stanley R. Cabrera wherein Atty. Andres, now the petitioner, points to the
vile, incivil and uncouth language used by
respondent, as shown in the following excerpts:

“9.    That the moronic statements of Atty.
Ernesto Cruz and Atty. Emilia Andres are the product
of moronic conspiracy to conceal the said falsified, fraudulent and
unauthorized document in the sense that how can the CARS conduct a diligent
search for the aforesaid document when according to the moronic excuse
of the Chief of the said office which took over the functions of the defunct
WCC considering that it is easier to resort to the list of the inventory of
cases before conducting a diligent search unless both are morons with
regards to their public office x x x” (underscoring supplied).

“10.  That due to the fact that Acting Referee
Benjamin R. Perez, Alfredo Antonio, Jr., Atty. Ernesto Cruz and Atty. Emilia Andres has perpetrated a moronic but criminal
conspiracy to conceal the falsified, fraudulent and unauthorized petition x
x x.” (underscoring supplied).

“x x x.  And to
show beyond reasonable doubt that the same letter is a manufactured evidence
respondent Atty. Andres in another demonstration of her unparalleled stupidity in the discharge of her public functions moronically failed to affix her signature to further aggravate matters said
manufactured evidence was moronically received upon unlawful inducement
by respondents Atty. Cruz and Atty. Andres in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy by the idiotic with
regards to the discharge of public functions. 
x x x”
(underscoring supplied)

The same words and phrases are used in respondent’s
other affidavits supporting the criminal cases against the petitioner such as
the following:

“Her moronic but criminal
participation as a conspirator”

“another demonstration of her
unparalleled stupidity in the discharge of her public functions moronically
failed to affix her signature”

“said manufactured evidence was
moronically received by unlawful inducement by respondents”

“idiotic receiving clerk of
CAR”

“unparalleled
stupidity of chief respondent”

On April 28, 1977,
this Court required respondent to file an answer to the petition to disqualify
him from admission to the Bar and ordered at the same time that his oath-taking
be held in abeyance until further orders.  In his answer, respondent admits the filing of
criminal cases in the City Fiscal’s Office against
the petitioner but he claims that his language was not vile, uncouth and
uncivil due to the simple reason that the same is the truth and was made with
good intentions and justifiable motives pursuant to respondent’s sense of
justice as cherished under the New Society, aside from being absolutely
privileged.  Respondent’s answer,
however, repeats his former allegations that “Atty. Emilia
Andres is not only a moron” and reiterates “the moronic discharge of
public functions by complainant Atty. Emilia
Andres.”

The records show repeated motions of respondent dated October 21,
1977 and February 22, 1978 for the early resolution of his case and in his
letter dated April 11, 1978 addressed to then Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro,
respondent sought, in his very words “some semblance of justice from the
Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines” and another letter to the
Chief Justice dated August 17, 1978 making reference to the “avalance of the sadistic resolution en banc,”
“the cruel and inhuman punishment the Court has speedily bestowed upon
undersigned respondent,” “the Court does not honor its own
resolution,” and closing his letter thus – “A victim of the Court’s inhuman
and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction.”

We referred the petition
of Atty. Emilia Andres to the Legal Investigator of
the Court for investigation, report and recommendation which was submitted on May 24, 1979.  Acting on said report, the Court resolved to
defer the oath-taking of respondent pending showing that he has amended his
ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous and civil language.  Thereafter, respondent filed on September 3, 1979 an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to annul Our
resolution of June 5, 1979
and to reinvestigate the case, preferably giving opportunity to respondent to
argue his case orally before the Court or to allow him to take his oath of
office as an attorney.  We denied the
motion.

On September 11, 1979,
respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt of Court, praying the Supreme
Court to cite complainant Atty. Emilia Andres for
contempt of court, alleging that her false and malicious accusations coupled
with her improper and obnoxious acts during the investigation impeded,
obstructed and degraded the administration of justice.

Under paragraph 2 of said motion, he states:

“2.  That with all due respect to this Court, the aforestated resolution en banc to DEFER my
oath-taking as an attorney pending showing that “he has amended his ways
and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous, and civil language” is a
degradation of the administration of justice due to the fact that the same
is bereft of legal foundation due to the fact that the investigation conducted
by Atty. Victor J. Sevilla, whose supreme
stupidity in the discharge of his official functions is authenticated by
his overt partiality to the complainant as authenticated by the transcript of
records of this case thus depriving undersigned respondent-movant
of the “Cold and neutral impartiality of a judge” tantamount to lack
of due process of law;” (underscoring supplied).

We noted that the above paragraph is a repetition of paragraph 4
in respondent’s previous Urgent Ex-Parte Motion dated
September 3, 1979 which also
states:

“4.  That with all due respect to this Court, the aforestated resolution en banc to DEFER my oath-taking as
an attorney pending showing that “he has amended his ways and has
conformed to the use of polite, courteous and civil language” is a
degradation of the administration of justice due to the fact that same is
bereft of legal foundation due to the fact that the investigation conducted by
Atty. Victor J. Sevilla, whose supreme stupidity
in the discharge of his official functions is authenticated by his overt
partiality to the complainant as authenticated
by the transcript of records of this case thus depriving undersigned
respondent-movant of the “cold and neutral impartiality
of a judge,” tantamount to lack of due process of law;” (underscoring
supplied).

We also took note in respondent’s Urgent Motion for Contempt of
Court the language used by him in praying this Court “to impose upon said Emilia E. Andres imprisonment commensurate to the
humiliation and vomitting injustice
undersigned respondent-movant suffered and still
suffering from this Court due to complainant Atty. Emilia
E. Andres’ wanton dishonesty.”

It is obvious and self-evident that respondent has not amended
his conduct despite the Court’s admonition. 
Respondent persists and keeps on using abusive and vituperative language
before the Court.  Accordingly, We resolved in Our resolution of October 11, 1979 to require respondent to show
cause why he should not be cited and punished for contempt of court.

Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated September 27, 1979 wherein he tried
to assure the Court that he has amended his ways and has conformed to the use
of polite, courteous and civil language and prayed that he be allowed to take
the lawyer’s oath.  We denied it on October 16, 1979.

Thereafter, respondent submitted a pleading entitled “Subrosa” dated October 22, 1979 and answered the citation for contempt
against him in the following wise and manner:

“3.  That without prejudice to my Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration dated Sept. 27, 1979, undersigned respondent respectfully
states to this Court that the respondent charges that the Court’s Resolution of
June 5, 1979 is a “degradation of the administration of justice,”
was never intended as a defiance of this Court’s authority, nor to scandalize
the integrity, dignity, and respect which this Court enjoys, but was an
statement made with utmost good faith out of frustration out of
respondent’s inability to take his lawyer’s oath since April, 1977 and in justifiable
indignation at the illegalities perpetrated by both complainant Emilia E. Andres and Legal Investigator Victor Sevilla, both members of the Bar which are evident with a
cursory perusal of the typewritten transcript of the stenographic notes of the
hearings conducted by Legal Investigator Sevilla
which this Court adopted;” (underscoring supplied).

We reject totally respondent’s supposed humble apology “for
all his non-conformity to the use of polite, courteous and civil language in
all his pleadings filed with the Court and on his solemn word of honor pledges
not to commit the same hereinafter” and his disavowal of intent of
“defiance of (the) Court’s authority nor to scandalize (its) integrity,
dignity and respect which this Court enjoys”.  Such apology and disavowal appear to be
insincere, sham and artful for respondent in the same breadth contends that his
statement calling the Court’s resolution of June 5, 1979 as “a degradation
of the administration of justice” was made “with utmost good faith
out of frustration of respondent’s inability to take his lawyer’s oath since
April, 1977 and in justifiable indignation of the illegalities perpetrated by
both complainant Emilia E. Andres and Legal
Investigator Victor Sevilla.”

Although respondent is not yet admitted to the legal profession
but now stands at the threshold thereof, having already passed the Bar
examinations, it is as much his duty as
every attorney-at-law already admitted to the practice of law to “observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers
(Sec. 20, (b), Rule 138, Rules of Court) and “to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged” (Sec. 20, (f), Rule 138).  According to the Canons of Professional
Ethics, it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a
respectful attitude not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial
office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.  Judges, not being wholly free to defend
themselves, are particularly entitled to receive the support of the Bar against
unjust criticism and clamor.  This duty
is likewise incumbent upon one aspiring to be a lawyer, such as the respondent
for the attorney’s oath solemnly enjoins him to “conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my client.”

The power of the Supreme
Court to punish for contempt is inherent and extends to suits at law as well as
to administrative proceedings as in the case at bar for it is as necessary to
maintain respect for the courts, in administrative cases as it is in any other
class of judicial proceedings.  Under
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person guilty of any improper conduct tending,
directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
justice may be punished for contempt, and the reason is that respect for the
courts guarantees their stability and permanence.  Without such guaranty, the institution of the
courts would be resting on a very loose and flimsy foundation, such
power is essential to the proper execution and effective maintenance of
judicial authority.

Respondent’s use of vile, rude and repulsive language is patent
and palpable from the very words, phrases and sentences he has written and
which are quoted herein.  They speak for
themselves in their vulgarity, insolence and calumny.  Specifically, respondent’s direct reference
to the Court on the “sadistic resolution en banc,” “the cruel
and inhuman punishment the Court has speedily bestowed” upon him, that
“the Court does not honor its own resolution,” that he is “a
victim of the Court’s inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme
inaction,” and that he is suffering “humiliation and vomitting injustice” from this Court is not only
disrespectful but his charges are false, sham and unfounded.

There is no excuse, much less plea or pretext to brand ultimately
the Court’s resolution deferring the oath-taking of the respondent as a new
lawyer issued June 5, 1979
as “a degradation of the administration of justice.” By 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.  He has committed contempt of this Court.

WHEREFORE, respondent Stanley R. Cabrera is found guilty
of contempt and he is hereby sentenced to pay this Court within ten days from
notice hereof a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) or imprisonment of fifty
(50) days.

Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondent’s
personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
Fernandez, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.