RHEEM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ZOILO R. FERRER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. IN RE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE, LEONARDO SIGUION REYNA, MANUEL G. …

Rheem of the Philippines versus Ferrer

The Case

This is a contempt proceeding that arose, not from the principal labor dispute, but from the language used by counsel in a motion for reconsideration filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioners in the underlying case were Rheem of the Philippines and others; the respondents were Zoilo Ferrer and others, represented by a law firm whose associate prepared the offending motion. The Court here does not decide the merits of the labor case at all. It decides whether the words employed by counsel crossed the line from vigorous advocacy into disrespect for the Court, and it uses the occasion to restate the lawyer's duty of respect toward the courts and the supervising partner's duty of control over pleadings that carry the firm's name. The case matters because it is a compact statement of the ethical boundary between forceful argument and contemptuous language.

Procedural History

The case began as a labor dispute before the Court of Industrial Relations. From there it reached the Supreme Court, which rendered a decision. Counsel for the petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision. The language of that motion drew from the Supreme Court an order directing counsel to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court. The respondent attorneys filed a verified return offering their sincere apologies, and thereafter Attorneys Ponce Enrile and Armonio were orally heard in open court. The Court then resolved the contempt charge in the resolution now before us.

Facts

After the Supreme Court decided the principal case, counsel for the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. In it, counsel wrote that the Court had repeatedly fallen into one pitfall whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations came into question: the tendency to rely on its own pronouncements without regard to the statutes delineating the industrial court's jurisdiction. Counsel charged that the Court's decisions cited earlier rulings without any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute, thereby perpetuating earlier errors. Counsel also said the Court had contravened Rule 2, Section 5 of the Rules of Court in applying the so-called rule against splitting of jurisdiction, and labelled that rule as so-called.

The Court issued an order to show cause why counsel should not be held in contempt. In their verified return, the respondent attorneys offered their most sincere apologies for the language used and said it was never their intention to be disrespectful. They explained that the language was the result of overenthusiasm on the part of Attorney Jose Armonio, who had handled the case since its inception at the Court of Industrial Relations and had perhaps become too emotionally involved. The partners of the law firm, Attorneys Alfonso Ponce Enrile, Leonardo Siguion Reyna, Manuel Montecillo, Enrique Belo and Oscar Ongsiako, assumed full responsibility and stated that none of them had passed upon the draft or final form of the motion, which Attorney Armonio, an associate, prepared, signed and filed without clearing it with any partner. They expressed deep regret and pledged that it shall never happen again.

At the hearing, Attorneys Ponce Enrile and Armonio were orally heard. Attorney Ponce Enrile stated in open court that in his long years of practice he knows it serves no useful purpose to downgrade the dignity of the Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the language used by counsel in the motion for reconsideration constituted contempt of court and violated the lawyer's duty to observe and maintain respect due to the courts.
• Whether or not the absence of any intention to offend, attributed to overenthusiasm, excuses counsel from liability for the language employed.
• Whether or not the partners of the law firm may be held responsible for a pleading prepared and filed by an associate without their clearance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20, paragraph b, of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.

This is the categorical duty of every lawyer that the Court measures counsel's language against.

The first canon of legal ethics, as quoted by the Court, provides:

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.

This canon supplies the rationale: respect is owed to the judicial office itself, not to the person who temporarily holds it.

The attorney's oath, as the Court describes it, binds the lawyer to conduct:

with all good fidelity to the courts.

This oath confirms that fidelity to the courts is a solemn and enforceable obligation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the language was contemptuous. It found that the motion implied the Court was patently inept, that it had committed and continuously repeated error to the point of perpetuation, and that its pronouncements on the industrial court's jurisdiction were not entitled to respect. The words detracted from the dignity of the Court and brought into question the capability of its members to render justice, and the labelling of the rule as so-called carried a tone of sarcasm. The Court stressed that a lawyer's duties to the Court are commonplace and that there could hardly be any valid excuse for lapses in their observance. It held that resort in a motion for reconsideration to words which may drag the Court into disrepute is frowned upon as neither justified nor necessary, because the many reasons stated in the motion are sufficient and such words are superfluous. What is proscribed is the use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration, or encourages discontent that undermines the foundation of judicial power.

On the second issue, the Court held that want of intention is no excuse for the language employed. Counsel cannot escape responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning. At best, lack of intention extenuates liability. Enthusiasm is not bad in itself, but it must be circumscribed within the bounds of propriety and with due regard for the proper place of courts in our system of government.

On the third issue, the Court held that partners are duty bound to provide efficacious control of court pleadings and other court papers that carry their names or the name of their law firm. Such control was seemingly absent here. The Court nevertheless said it may overlook the shortcomings of the members of the firm, and instead invited their attention to the necessity of exercising adequate supervision and control over the pleadings submitted by their firm.

Doctrine

A lawyer must observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, and this duty is owed to the judicial office itself, not merely to its temporary incumbent. The use of unnecessary language in a pleading that jeopardizes esteem for the courts, promotes distrust in judicial administration, or tends to drag the Court into disrepute is contemptuous and is neither justified nor necessary, since emphatic but respectful language is always available. Good intention does not excuse disrespectful language; at most it extenuates liability. Finally, partners in a law firm are duty bound to exercise efficacious supervision and control over pleadings and court papers that carry their names or the name of their firm.

Disposition

The Court admonished Attorney Jose Armonio, with the warning that a repetition of the incident will be dealt with accordingly, and ordered that a copy of the resolution be attached to his record, while inviting the attention of the partners to the necessity of exercising adequate supervision and control over their firm's pleadings.

Remember This

Memorize the line that want of intention is no excuse for disrespectful language and at best only extenuates liability. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and contempt questions on a lawyer's duty of respect to the courts and on a partner's duty to control the pleadings filed under the firm's name.