Scribd
Upload
4K views2 pages

In Re Laureta

The Supreme Court found attorney Wenceslao Laureta and his client Eva Maravilla-Illustre in contempt of court for their actions relating to a dismissed land dispute case. Illustre had written letters to the justices complaining of the dismissal and threatening further action. She later filed a criminal complaint with the Tanodbayan accusing the justices of an unjust ruling, which Laureta publicized to the media. The Court determined that the letters were part of the judicial record and that Laureta's actions in circulating the complaint undermined the Court's authority. It held both Laureta and Illustre in contempt for their scurrilous attacks and to preserve the ethics of the legal profession.

Uploaded by

archer2013
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4K views2 pages

In Re Laureta

The Supreme Court found attorney Wenceslao Laureta and his client Eva Maravilla-Illustre in contempt of court for their actions relating to a dismissed land dispute case. Illustre had written letters to the justices complaining of the dismissal and threatening further action. She later filed a criminal complaint with the Tanodbayan accusing the justices of an unjust ruling, which Laureta publicized to the media. The Court determined that the letters were part of the judicial record and that Laureta's actions in circulating the complaint undermined the Court's authority. It held both Laureta and Illustre in contempt for their scurrilous attacks and to preserve the ethics of the legal profession.

Uploaded by

archer2013
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

In re LAURETA

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

G.R. No. L-68635 May 14, 1987

Facts: Maravilla Illustre wrote to the justices of the SC, complaining about the dismissal of the her case (a land dispute involving large estate) by a minute-resolution. Illustre claims that it was an unjust resolution deliberately and knowingly promulgated by the 1st Division, that it was railroaded with such hurry beyond the limits of legal and judicial ethics. Illustre also threatened in her letter that, there is nothing final in this world. This case is far from finished by a long shot. She threatened that she would call for a press conference. Illustres letter basically attacks the participation of Justice Pedro Yap in the first division. It was established that Justice Yap was previously a law partner of Atty. Ordonez, now the Solgen and counsel for the opponents. The letters were referred to the SC en banc. The SC clarified that when the minute-resolution was issued, the presiding justice then was not Justice Yap but Justice Abad Santos (who was about to retire), and that Justice Yap was not aware that Atty Ordonez was the opponents counsel. It was also made clear that Justice Yap eventually inhibited himself from the case. Still, Illustre wrote letters to the other justices (Narvasa, Herrera, Cruz), again with more threats to expose the kind of judicial performance readily constituting travesty of justice. True to her threats, Illustre later filed a criminal complaint before the Tanodbayan, charging the Justices with knowingly rendering an unjust Minute Resolution. Justice Yap and Solgen Ordonez were also charged of using their influence in the First Division in rendering said Minute Resolution. Atty LAURETA was the counsel of Illustre. He circulate copies of the complain to the press, without any copy furnished the Court, nor the Justices charged. It was made to appear that the Justices were charged with graft and corruption. The Tanodbayan dismissed the complaint. Now, the SC is charging them with contempt. They claim that the letters were private communication, and that they did not intend to dishonor the court. Issue: WON privacy of communication was violated Held: The letters formed part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire court. There is no vindictive reprisal involved here. The Courts authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.

We re not convinced that Atty Laureta had nothing to do with Ilustres letters, nor with the complaint filed with the tanodbayan. Atty Laureta repeated disparaging remarks such as undue influence, powerful influence in his pleadings. This was bolstered by the report that Laureta distributed copies of the complaint to the newspaper companies in envelopes bearing his name. He was also heard over the radio. Lastly, as Illustres lawyer, he had control of the proceedings. SC resolutions are beyond investigation from other departments of the government because of separation of powers. The correctness of the SC decisions are conclusive upon other branches of government.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy