Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 201 views

    Case 42 Legal Ethics

    Uploaded by

    Brent Torres
    The Supreme Court found two sets of lawyers in contempt for disrespectful language used in motions for reconsideration regarding a case involving MacArthur International Minerals Corp. In the first motion, lawyers Santiago and Sotto used language insulting to the Court. In the second motion, lawyer Caling also included disrespectful language, though he claimed the motion was prepared by Santiago. The Court ruled the lawyers were in contempt in both cases as their language degraded justice and failed to show respect to the courts as required. They did not restrain their client from improper conduct and language towards the court as their duty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 42 Legal Ethics

    Uploaded by

    Brent Torres
    201 views1 page
    The Supreme Court found two sets of lawyers in contempt for disrespectful language used in motions for reconsideration regarding a case involving MacArthur International Minerals Corp. In the first motion, lawyers Santiago and Sotto used language insulting to the Court. In the second motion, lawyer Caling also included disrespectful language, though he claimed the motion was prepared by Santiago. The Court ruled the lawyers were in contempt in both cases as their language degraded justice and failed to show respect to the courts as required. They did not restrain their client from improper conduct and language towards the court as their duty.

    Original Description:

    legal ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court found two sets of lawyers in contempt for disrespectful language used in motions for reconsideration regarding a case involving MacArthur International Minerals Corp. In the first motion, lawyers Santiago and Sotto used language insulting to the Court. In the second motion, lawyer Caling also included disrespectful language, though he claimed the motion was prepared by Santiago. The Court ruled the lawyers were in contempt in both cases as their language degraded justice and failed to show respect to the courts as required. They did not restrain their client from improper conduct and language towards the court as their duty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    201 views1 page

    Case 42 Legal Ethics

    Uploaded by

    Brent Torres
    The Supreme Court found two sets of lawyers in contempt for disrespectful language used in motions for reconsideration regarding a case involving MacArthur International Minerals Corp. In the first motion, lawyers Santiago and Sotto used language insulting to the Court. In the second motion, lawyer Caling also included disrespectful language, though he claimed the motion was prepared by Santiago. The Court ruled the lawyers were in contempt in both cases as their language degraded justice and failed to show respect to the courts as required. They did not restrain their client from improper conduct and language towards the court as their duty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    SURIGAO VS CLORIBEL

    G.R. No. L-27072 January 9, 1970

    FACTS:
    These are two contempt cases against Attorneys Vicente L. Santiago, Jose Beltran
    Sotto, Graciano C. Regala and Associates, Erlito R. Uy, Juanito M. Caling; and Morton F.
    Meads.
    The Supreme Court rendered a decision against MacArthur International Minerals
    Corp and in their third Motion for Reconsideration, Attys. Vicente Santiago and John
    Beltran Sotto made use of language that are disrespectful and contemptuous to the Court
    like "it seems many of our judicial authorities believe they are chosen messengers of
    God", "corrupt in its face" and insinuating favoritism and partisanship of the members of
    the Court. Santiago insisted that the statements he made were inadvertently included in
    the copy sent to the Court, and was just intended to be in the MR's rough draft.
    The second contempt case is when the counsel for MacArthur drafted a fourth
    motion for reconsideration, this time with Atty. Juanito M. Caling as counsel, and again
    contained language which the Court found disrespectful. The MR assailed the decision
    penned by CJ Concepcion since he was out of town when the decision was written and
    included seeming threats of elevating the issue to the World Court and allegations of rise
    of graft and corruption in the judiciary. The Court demanded Caling to also "show cause"
    and he said that it the motion was already prepared by Santiago when he took the case
    as was verified by Morton Meads, an employee from MacArthur.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the lawyers should be cited in contempt?

    RULING:
    In the first contempt case, they should be cited in contempt. The language
    employed by Santiago and Sotto degrades the administration of justice which
    transgresses Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as well as Sec. 20 (f) of Rule
    138 of the RoC which states that "a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with
    the dignity of the legal profession". They are also expected to observe and maintain the
    respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers but their acts resulted in the
    contrary and are intended to create an atmosphere of distrust.
    Furthermore, in the second contempt case, they are likewise guilty of contempt.
    Even if the idea of the language used in the 4th MR came from Meads, both Santiago
    and Caling should've adhered to Canon 16 wherein "a lawyer should use his best efforts
    to restrain and to prevent his clients from doing those things which a lawyer himself ought
    not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct towards courts, judicial officers,
    jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such wrongdoing, the lawyer should
    terminate their relation". Santiago is also liable here since Caling's represention didn't
    divest him of his capacity as counsel for MacArthur.

    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