Atty Tiongco V Hon Aguilar GR 115932

THE SPOUSES JOSE B. TIONGCO and LETICIA M.
TIONGCO
vs.
HON. SEVERIANO C. AGUILAR, Judge, RTC, Branch 35, Iloilo City, and the
Spouses WILFREDO and LORENA AGUIRRE
G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995
FACTS:
In the resolution of 26 September 1994, this Court required ATTY. JOSE B.

TIONGCO, as counsel for the petitioners, to show cause why he should not be dealt with
administratively for the violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
considering:
. . . the insinuation of counsel for the petitioners that this Court did not read the
petition as borne out by the following statement: ". . .
Truly, it is hard to imagine that this Honorable Court had read the petition and
the annexes attached thereto and hold that the same has "failed to sufficiently
show that the respondent Court had committed a grave abuse of discretion in
rendering the questioned judgment". . .
which, as earlier noted, is unfounded and malicious, and considering further his use of
intemperate language in the petition, as exemplified by his characterization of the decision
of the respondent Judge as having been "crafted in order to fool the winning party";
as a "hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs' favor"; one "you could have sworn it was
the Devil who dictated it"; or one with "perfidious character," although the petitioners
as plaintiffs therein and who were the prevailing party in the decision did not appeal
therefrom; and by his charge that the respondent Judge was "a bit confused — with
that confusion which is the natural product of having been born, nurtured and
brought up amongst the crowded surroundings of the non-propertied class; In fact,
His Honor, Respondent Judge, the Honorable Severiano O. Aguilar had not owned
any real property until March 5, 1974 when his Honor was already either Public-
Prosecutor or RTC Judge; — in one scale of the balance, a 311 square meter lot, 6
houses from the Provincial Road, about 6 kilometers from the Iloilo City Hall of
Justice, and, in the other scale, His Honor's brand-new car, impeccable attire, and
dignified "mien"; and his charge that the respondent Judge has "joined the defendants
and their counsel in a scheme to unlawfully deprive petitioners of the possession
and fruits of their property for the duration of appeal"; and with respect to the Order
of 30 May 1994, by describing the respondent Judge as a "liar," "perjurer," or
"blasphemer."
In Compliance, dated 11 October 1994, he alleged that: If the undersigned has

called anyone a "liar" "thief" "perfidious" and "blasphemer" it is because he is in fact a
liar, thief, perfidious and blasphemer; "this Honorable First Division, however, forget,
that the undersigned also called him a "robber", a "rotten manipulator and "abetter"
of graft and shady deals; On the other hand, if the undersigned called anybody "cross-
eyed," it must be because he is indeed cross-eyed — particularly when he sees but five
(5) letters in an eight (8) letter-word; Indeed, it must be a lousy Code of Professional
Responsibility and therefore stands in dire need of amendment which punishes lawyer
who truthfully expose incompetent and corrupt judges before this Honorable Supreme
Court; It is therefore, respectfully submitted, that for all his pains, the undersigned does
not deserve or is entitled to the honors of being dealt with administratively or otherwise.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Tiongco is guilty of violation of Canon 11 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Complainant's use of intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the

duty of respect a lawyer owes to the courts. Complainant violated Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers" and, more specifically, Rule 11.03,
which mandates that "a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts."
It is true that lawyers can criticize the courts — it is their right as citizens and their
duty as officers of the court to avail of such right. But, as held in In Re: Almacen, "it is [a]
cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety." By his unjust denigration of respondent judge,
complainant exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety. By showing disrespect to
and contempt for respondent judge, complainant diminished public confidence in
respondent judge and, eventually, in the judiciary.
Thus, Atty. Tiongco was warned that the commission of the same or similar acts
in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Atty Tiongco V Hon Aguilar GR 115932

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty Tiongco V Hon Aguilar GR 115932

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty Tiongco V Hon Aguilar GR 115932

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE SPOUSES JOSE B. TIONGCO and LETICIA M.

G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995

In the resolution of 26 September 1994, this Court required ATTY. JOSE B.

In Compliance, dated 11 October 1994, he alleged that: If the undersigned has

Whether or not Atty. Tiongco is guilty of violation of Canon 11 of the Code of

Complainant's use of intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the

You might also like