Donald Dee vs C.A. [G.R.

by Ramon Sy and petitioner and his family were further

freed from the apprehension that Dewey might be
No. 77439. August harmed or even killed by the so-called mafia. For such

24, 1989] services, respondent Mutuc is indubitably entitled to

receive a reasonable compensation and this right cannot
be concluded by petitioner’s pretension that at the time
private respondent rendered such services to petitioner
Ponente: REGALADO, J.
and his family, the former was also the Philippine
FACTS:
consultant of Caesar’s Palace.
Petitioner and his father went to the residence of private
A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and
respondent, accompanied by the latter’s cousin, to seek
reasonable compensation for services rendered at the
his advice regarding the problem of the alleged
special instance and request of his client and as long as
indebtedness of petitioner’s brother, Dewey Dee, to
he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and
Caesar’s Palace, a well-known gambling casino at Las
represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to
Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. Private respondent personally
pay his just fees.
talked with the president of Caesar’s Palace at Las
Vegas, Nevada. He advised the president that for the
sake and in the interest of the casino it would be better
to make Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. The
president told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to
acknowledge the obligation, Dewey Dee would be
exculpated from liability for the account. Upon private
respondent’s return to Manila, he conferred with Ramon
Sy and the latter was convinced to acknowledge the
indebtedness. In August, 1981, private respondent
brought to Caesar’s Palace the letter of Ramon Sy
owning the debt and asking for a discount. Thereafter,
the account of Dewey Dee was cleared and the casino
never bothered him.

Having thus settled the account of petitioner’s brother,

private respondent sent several demand letters to
petitioner demanding the balance of P50,000.00 as
attorney’s fees. Petitioner, however, ignored said letters.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is an attorney-client relationship
between parties.

HELD:
YES. Court affirmed the decision of the defendant Court
of Appeals. Costs against the petitioner.

RATIO:
[T]here is no question that professional services were
actually rendered by private respondent to petitioner and
his family. Through his efforts, the account of petitioner’s
brother, Dewey Dee, with Caesar’s Palace was assumed
CHOA VS CHIONGSON lingly, promote or sue any groundless, false, or
unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the sa
me; (2) by Section 20(c), Rule 138 of the Rules
FACTS:
of Court, to counsel or maintain such action or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just; an
Judge Chiongson rendered judgment and foun d (3) to uphold the Code of Professional Respo
d Alfonso Chua to be guilty of perjury upon mat nsibility. It was incumbent upon him to give a c
erial matters required by the Revised Naturaliz andid and honest opinion on the merits and pr
ation Law. When the motion for reconsideratio obable results of the complainants case (Rule 1
n was denied, Choa filed instant complaint and 5.05, Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsib
prayed for the removal of the respondent judge ility) with the end in view of promoting respect
from office. Some of the allegations were that t for the law and legal processes (Canon 1, Id.). H
he Judge was bias being a neighbor of Choa’s w e should, therefore, be required to show cause
ife who initiated the case for perjury, which the why no disciplinary action should be taken agai
judge denied as there was a house between his nst him for his apparent failure to observe the f
and chua’s wife’s. also that the allegations in th oregoing duties and responsibilities.
e Information do not constitute the offense of p
erjury,

ISSUE:

Whether or not the complaint praying for the r

emoval of the judge will prosper.

RULING:

No. Granting that they are indeed next-door ne

ighbors does not necessarily mean that respond
ent Judge has violated Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court for Disqualification of Judges. Nowhere i
n said Rule is it ordained that being the neighb
or of a party-litigant is reason enough for the J
udge to disqualify himself from hearing the for
mers case.

As regards the claim that the allegations in the i

nformation did not constitute an offense for pe
rjury, if the complainant and his counsel hones
tly believed that it did not, they should have file
d a motion to quash. But they did not.

As to Atty. Raymundo A. Quiroz, counsel for th

e complainant, he must have been aware of the
utter lack of merit of the charges against the res
pondent. As a Member of the Philippine Bar he
is bound: (1) by his oath, not to, wittingly or wil
KELLY R. WICKER and ATTY. 1. That before the Acting Presiding Judge took
ORLANDO A. over, defendant LFS Enterprises, Inc. was able
RAYOS, petitioners, vs. HON. to maneuver the three (3) successive
PAUL T. ARCANGEL, as postponements for the presentation for cross-
Presiding Judge of the RTC, examination of Mrs. Remedios Porcuna on her
Makati, Branch 134, respondent. 10 August 1992 Affidavit, but eventually, she
was not presented;
DECISION
2. Meantime, Judge [Ignacio] Capulong who
MENDOZA, J.:
had full grasp of this case was eased out of his
This is a petition for certiorari, station. In one hearing, the Acting Presiding
assailing the orders dated December 3, Judge had not yet reported to his station and in
1993 and December 17, 1993 of that set hearing, counsel for defendant LFS
respondent Judge Paul T. Arcangel of the Enterprises, Inc. who must have known that
Regional Trial Court, Branch 134 of His Honor was not reporting did not likewise
Makati, finding petitioners guilty of direct appear while other counsels were present;
contempt and sentencing each of them to
3. Plaintiffs have information that the Acting
suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and
Presiding Judge was personally recruited from
to pay a fine of P100.00.
the south by Atty. Benjamin Santos and/or his
The antecedent facts are as follows: wife, Atty. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos, one time
Kelly Wicker, with his wife Wynee member of the Judicial and Bar Council,
Dieppe and the Tectonics Asia Architects against whom plaintiff Kelly R. Wicker filed
and Engineering Co., brought suit in the Administrative Case No. 3796, and although
Regional Trial Court of Makati against the said case was dismissed, nevertheless,
LFS Enterprises, Inc. and others, for the plaintiffs feel that it was the reason for Atty.
annulment of certain deeds by which a Ofelia Calcetas-Santos relief;
house and lot at Forbes Park, which the
4. Plaintiffs have reason to doubt the partiality
plaintiffs claimed they had purchased,
and integrity of His Honor and to give a
was allegedly fraudulently titled in the
fighting chance for plaintiffs to prove their
name of the defendant LFS Enterprises
case, since this will be the last case to recover
and later sold by the latter to codefendant
the partnership property, plaintiffs feel that
Jose Poe. The case, docketed as Civil
His Honor inhibit himself and set this case for
Case No. 14048, was assigned to Branch
re-raffle;
134 formerly presided over by Judge
Ignacio Capulong who later was replaced 5. This move finds support in the Rules of
by respondent Judge Paul T. Arcangel. Court and jurisprudence that in the first
It appears that on November 18, instance that a litigant doubts the partiality
1993, Wickers counsel, Atty. Orlando A. and integrity of the Presiding Judge, he should
Rayos, filed a motion seeking the immediately move for his inhibition.
inhibition of respondent judge from the
consideration of the case. The motion
[1] The motion was verified by Kelly
alleged in pertinent part: Wicker.
Considering the allegations to be
malicious, derogatory and contemptuous,
respondent judge ordered both counsel contend that respondent judge committed
and client to appear before him on a grave abuse of his discretion in citing
November 26, 1993 and to show cause them for contempt. They argue that when
why they should not be cited for contempt a person, impelled by justifiable
of court.
[2]
apprehension and acting in a respectful
manner, asks a judge to inhibit himself
In a pleading entitled Opposition to
from hearing his case, he does not
and/or Comment to Motion to Cite for
thereby become guilty of contempt.
Direct Contempt Directed Against Plaintiff
Kelly R. Wicker and his Counsel, Atty. In his comment, respondent judge
[5]

Rayos claimed that the allegations in the alleges that he took over as Acting
motion did not necessarily express his Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
views because he merely signed the Court of Makati, Branch 134 by virtue of
motion in a representative capacity, in Administrative Order No. 154-93 dated
other words, just lawyering, for Kelly September 2, 1993 of this Court and not
Wicker, who said in a note to him that a because, as petitioners alleged, he was
young man possibly employed by the personally recruited from the South by
Court had advised him to have the case Atty. Santos and/or his wife, Atty. Ofelia
reraffled, when the opposing counsel Atty. Calcetas-Santos; that he assumed his
Benjamin Santos and the new judge both new office on October 11, 1993 and
failed to come for a hearing, because their started holding sessions on October 18,
absence was an indication that Atty. 1993; that when all male personnel of his
Santos knew who the judge may be and court were presented to petitioner Kelly
when he would appear. Wickers sense of Wicker he failed to pick out the young
disquiet increased when at the next two man who was the alleged source of the
hearings, the new judge as well as Atty. remarks prompting the filing of the motion
Santos and the latters witness, Mrs. for inhibition; that he was not vindictive
Remedios Porcuna, were all absent, while and that he in fact refrained from
the other counsels were present. [3]
implementing the execution of his order
dated December 3, 1993 to enable
Finding petitioners explanation
petitioners to avail themselves of all
unsatisfactory, respondent judge, in an
possible remedies; that after holding
order dated December 3, 1993, held them
petitioners in contempt, he issued an
guilty of direct contempt and sentenced
order dated December 8, 1993 inhibiting
each to suffer imprisonment for
himself from trying Civil Case No. 14048;
five (5) days and to pay a fine of P100.00.
that Atty. Rayos claim that he was just
Petitioners filed a motion for lawyering and acting as the vehicle or
reconsideration, which respondent judge mouthpiece of his client is untenable
denied for lack of merit in his order because his (Atty. Rayos) duties to the
of December 17, 1993. In the same order court are more important than those
respondent judge directed petitioners to which he owes to his client; and that by
appear before him on January 7, tendering their profuse apologies in their
1994 at 8:30 a.m. for the execution of motion for reconsideration of the
their sentence. December 3, 1993 order, petitioners
In their petition before this Court,
[4]
acknowledged the falsity of their
Kelly Wicker and Atty. Orlando A. Rayos accusations against him; and that the
petitioners have taken inconsistent cases of indirect contempt is appealable,
positions as to who should try Civil Case whereas in cases of direct contempt only
No. 14048 because in their Motion for judgments of contempt by MTCs, MCTCs
Inhibition dated November 18, 1993 they and MeTCs are appealable. [7]

asked that the case be reraffled to

Consequently, it was unnecessary in
another sala of the RTC of Makati, while
this case for respondent judge to hold a
in their petition dated November 29, 1993,
hearing. Hence even if petitioners are
which they filed with the Office of Court
right about the nature of the case against
Administrator, petitioners asked that
them by contending that it involves
Judge Capulong be allowed to continue
indirect contempt, they have no ground
hearing the case on the ground that he
for complaint since they were afforded a
had a full grasp of the case.
hearing before they were held guilty of
In reply to the last allegation of contempt. What is important to determine
respondent judge, petitioners claim that now is whether respondent judge
although they wanted a reraffle of the committed grave abuse of discretion in
case, it was upon the suggestion of holding petitioners liable for direct
respondent judge himself that they filed contempt.
the petition with the Court Administrator
We begin with the words of Justice
for the retention of Judge Capulong in the
Malcolm that the power to punish for
case.
contempt is to be exercised on the
What is involved in this case is an preservative and not on the vindictive
instance of direct contempt, since it principle. Only occasionally should it be
involves a pleading allegedly containing invoked to preserve that respect without
derogatory, offensive or malicious which the administration of justice will fail.
statements submitted to the court or judge The contempt power ought not to be
[8]

in which the proceedings are pending, as utilized for the purpose of merely
distinguished from a pleading filed in satisfying an inclination to strike back at a
another case. The former has been held party for showing less than full respect for
to be equivalent to misbehavior the dignity of the court. [9]

committed in the presence of or so near a

Consistent with the foregoing
court or judge as to interrupt the
principles and based on the
proceedings before the same within the
abovementioned facts, the Court sustains
meaning of Rule 71, 1 of the Rules of
Judge Arcangels finding that petitioners
Court and, therefore, direct contempt.[6]

are guilty of contempt. A reading of the

It is important to point out this allegations in petitioners motion for
distinction because in case of indirect or inhibition, particularly the following
constructive contempt, the contemnor paragraphs thereof:
may be punished only [a]fter charge in
writing has been filed, and an opportunity 2. Meantime, Judge Capulong who had full
given to the accused to be heard by grasp of this case was eased out of his station.
himself or counsel, whereas in case of In one hearing, the Acting Presiding Judge
direct contempt, the respondent may be had not yet reported to his station and in that
summarily adjudged in set hearing, counsel for defendant LFS
contempt. Moreover, the judgment in Enterprises, Inc. who must have known that
His Honor was not reporting did not likewise he was merely a mouthpiece. He was just
appear while other counsels were present; lawyering and he cannot be gagged, even
if the allegations in the motion for the
3. Plaintiffs have information that the Acting inhibition which he prepared and filed
Presiding Judge was personally recruited from were false since it was his client who
the south by Atty. Benjamin Santos and/or his verified the same.
wife, Atty. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos, one time
To be sure, what Wicker said in his
member of the Judicial and Bar Council,
against whom plaintiff Kelly R. Wicker filed note to Atty. Rayos was that he had been
told by an unidentified young man, whom
Administrative Case No. 3796, and although
said case was dismissed, nevertheless, he thought to be employed in the court,
that it seemed the opposing counsel, Atty.
plaintiffs feel that it was the reason for Atty.
Ofelia Calcetas-Santos relief; Santos, knew who the replacement judge
was, because Atty. Santos did not show
leads to no other conclusion than that up in court on the same days the new
respondent judge was beholden to the judge failed to come. It would, therefore,
opposing counsel in the case, Atty. appear that the other allegations in the
Benjamin Santos, to whom or to whose motion that respondent judge had been
wife, the judge owed his transfer to the personally recruited by the opposing
RTC of Makati, which necessitated easing counsel to replace Judge Capulong who
out the former judge to make room for had been eased out were Atty. Rayos and
such transfer. not Wickers. Atty. Rayos is thus
understating his part in the preparation of
These allegations are derogatory to the motion for inhibition.
the integrity and honor of respondent
judge and constitute an unwarranted Atty. Rayos, however, cannot evade
criticism of the administration of justice in responsibility for the allegations in
this country. They suggest that lawyers, if question. As a lawyer, he is not just an
they are well connected, can manipulate instrument of his client. His client came to
the assignment of judges to their him for professional assistance in the
advantage. The truth is that the representation of a cause, and while he
assignments of Judges Arcangel and owed him whole-souled devotion, there
Capulong were made by this Court, by were bounds set by his responsibility as a
virtue of Administrative Order No. 154-93, lawyer which he could not overstep.
precisely in the interest of an efficient Even a hired gun cannot be excused for
[11]

administration of justice and pursuant to what Atty. Rayos stated in the motion.
Sec. 5 (3), Art. VIII of the Constitution. Based on Canon 11 of the Code of
This is a matter of record which could
[10] Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos
have easily been verified by Atty. Rayos. bears as much responsibility for the
After all, as he claims, he deliberated for contemptuous allegations in the motion
two months whether or not to file the for inhibition as his client.
offending motion for inhibition as his client Atty. Rayos duty to the courts is not
allegedly asked him to do. secondary to that of his client. The Code
In extenuation of his own liability, Atty. of Professional Responsibility enjoins him
Rayos claims he merely did what he had to observe and maintain the respect due
been bidden to do by his client of whom to the courts and to judicial officers
and [to] insist on similar conduct by exercised for preservative rather than
others and not [to] attribute to a Judge
[12]
vindictive principle we think that the jail
motives not supported by the record or sentence on petitioners may be
have materiality to the case. [13]
dispensed with while vindicating the
dignity of the court. In the case of
After the respondent judge had
petitioner Kelly Wicker there is greater
favorably responded to petitioners profuse
reason for doing so considering that the
apologies and indicated that he would let
particularly offending allegations in the
them off with a fine, without any jail
motion for inhibition do not appear to have
sentence, petitioners served on
come from him but were additions made
respondent judge a copy of their instant
by Atty. Rayos. In addition, Wicker is
petition which prayed in part that
advanced in years (80) and in failing
Respondent Judge Paul T. Arcangel be
health (suffering from angina), a fact
REVERTED to his former station. He
Judge Arcangel does not dispute. Wicker
simply cannot do in the RTC of Makati
may have indeed been the recipient of
where more complex cases are heared
such a remark although he could not point
(sic) unlike in Davao City. If nothing else,
a court employee who was the source of
this personal attack on the judge only
the same. At least he had the grace to
serves to confirm the contumacious
admit his mistake both as to the source
attitude, a flouting or arrogant
and truth of said information. It is
belligerence first evident in petitioners
noteworthy Judge Arcangel was also
motion for inhibition belying their
willing to waive the imposition of the jail
protestations of good faith.
sentence on petitioners until he came
Petitioners cite the following statement upon petitioners description of him in the
in Austria v. Masaquel: [14]
instant petition as a judge who cannot
make the grade in the RTC of Makati,
Numerous cages there have been where where complex cases are being filed. In
judges, and even members of the Supreme response to this, he cited the fact that the
Court, were asked to inhibit themselves from Integrated Bar of the Philippines chose
trying, or from participating in the him as one of the most outstanding City
consideration of a case, but scarcely were the Judges and Regional Trial Court Judges
movants punished for contempt, even if the in 1979 and 1988 respectively and that he
grounds upon which they based their motions is a 1963 graduate of the U.P. College of
for disqualification are not among those Law.
provided in the rules. It is only when there
was direct imputation of bias or prejudice, or a In Ceniza v. Sebastian, which
[15]

stubborn insistence to disqualify the judge, likewise involved a motion for inhibition
done in a malicious, arrogant, belligerent and which described the judge corrupt, the
disrespectful manner, that movants were held Court, while finding counsel guilty of direct
in contempt of court. contempt, removed the jail sentence of 10
days imposed by the trial court for the
It is the second sentence rather than the reason that
first that applies to this case.
Here, while the words were contumacious, it
Be that as it may, the Court believes is hard to resist the conclusion, considering
that consistent with the rule that the the background of this occurrence that
power to cite for contempt must be
respondent Judge in imposing the ten-day
sentence was not duly mindful of the exacting
standard [of] preservation of the dignity of his
office not indulging his sense of grievance
sets the limits of the authority he is entitled to
exercise. It is the view of the Court that under
the circumstances the fine imposed should be
increased to P500.00.

The same justification also holds true in

this case.
WHEREFORE, the order of December
3, 1993 is MODIFIED by DELETING the
sentence of imprisonment for five (5) days
and INCREASING the fine from P 100.00
to P200.00 for each of the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.