IN RE FELICIANO GOMEZ, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.

In re Feliciano Gomez

The Case

This is a contempt proceeding brought in the Supreme Court itself by the Attorney General against Attorney Feliciano Gomez, an unsuccessful election protestant and a member of the Bar. Gomez, having lost his protest to Juan Cailles, publicly charged that the Supreme Court had ruled against him because the Governor General had invited the justices to a banquet and a secret conference before the decision was formulated. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between the court's power to punish contempt and the freedom of public comment on finished litigation, and because it teaches how a court should conduct itself when the very charge touches its own members.

Procedural History

The election contest began in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, where Cailles succeeded, and was elevated to the Supreme Court, which rendered judgment on December 9, 1921, and the judgment became final on December 24, 1921. Thereafter the Attorney General filed an information, with affidavits, in the Supreme Court, alleging that Gomez was guilty of contempt of court. The matter thus reached the Supreme Court as an original proceeding for contempt, not as an appeal from any lower ruling.

Facts

In the election of 1919, Feliciano Gomez and Juan Cailles were rival candidates for provincial governor of Laguna. Gomez was proclaimed elected, but Cailles contested the election successfully, first in the Court of First Instance and later in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's judgment was rendered on December 9, 1921, and became final on December 24, 1921.

On January 19, 1922, at a public meeting held to celebrate the fiesta of the municipality of Lumban, Laguna, Gomez said in effect that the Supreme Court had decided the protest in favor of Cailles because Governor General Wood, out of friendship for Cailles, had invited the members of the court to Malacañang before the decision was formulated, and there, after a secret conference, had offered them a banquet. These remarks were published in a Manila newspaper on January 25, 1922, and were substantiated by four affidavits.

The Court noted that the charges did not relate to a pending cause, and that the election case had in fact been taken up point by point and decided by principles, so that no member of the Court knew the outcome until the vote was tabulated.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Feliciano Gomez should be held in contempt of court for his public remarks imputing improper motives to the justices in a case already finally decided.
• Whether or not a court may punish as contempt criticism of its decision after the case is finished, where the honor and integrity of the court are assailed.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 1 of the Code of Ethics, cited by the Court, provides:

It is the duty of a 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 defines the professional obligation Gomez was found to have forgotten, and it is the standard against which his conduct as an officer of the court is measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court declined to hold Gomez in contempt. It acknowledged that the matter was embarrassing because the charges had personal aspects, but held that the power to punish for contempt is a jurisdiction to be exercised with scrupulous care, and that the matter should not be dignified by further proceedings. It doubted that anyone would think the justices would sell their birthright of judicial integrity for a social courtesy and the favor of the Chief Executive. It added that litigants and lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language.

On the second issue, the Court held that the charges did not relate to a pending cause, and stated the governing rule:

The rule in the more progressive jurisdictions is, that courts, when a case is finished, are subject to the same criticism as other people.

It explained that judges may not vindicate a private wrong by a public method, and that although the honor and integrity of the court may be assailed, judges, like other persons, are relegated to the courts for redress. It closed with the observation that where the liberty of the press and freedom of public comment ends, there tyranny begins.

Doctrine

First, the power to punish for contempt is a jurisdiction to be exercised with scrupulous care, and courts should be slow to dignify with proceedings words spoken in the heat of the moment by a losing litigant or lawyer.

Second, once a case is finished, courts are subject to the same criticism as other people; the honor and integrity of the court may be assailed, but judges, like other persons, must seek redress in the courts, for judges may not vindicate a private wrong by a public method.

Third, a lawyer's duty under Canon 1 of the Code of Ethics is 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.

Disposition

The Court declined to proceed against Gomez, commended the Attorney General for his zeal, and ordered that the papers be attached to the personal record of Attorney Feliciano Gomez without further action.

Remember This

Memorize the line: courts, when a case is finished, are subject to the same criticism as other people, and judges may not vindicate a private wrong by a public method. Examiners use this case on the limits of contempt power, on criticism of final judgments, and on the ethical duty of respect toward the courts under Canon 1 of the Code of Ethics.