Encinas vs. National Bookstore, Inc.

A lawyer who files a pleading accompanied by a forged judicial decision is guilty of direct contempt of court; the defense of good faith and honest mistake is unacceptable as lawyers are presumed to know better and have a positive duty to verify the authenticity of documents with appropriate authorities rather than rely merely on their clients' assertions.

This resolution arose in the context of the main case between petitioners Memoria G. Encinas and Adolfo A. Balboa and respondent National Bookstore, Inc. Atty. Ricardo T. Calimag entered his appearance as counsel for intervenors Roberto P. Madrigal-Acopiado and Datu Mohaldin R.B. Sulaiman, filing a Motion for Intervention with Leave of Court and Petition-In-Intervention to which he attached a copy of a forged judicial decision. The Court detected the forgery and initiated contempt proceedings.

• Atty. Ricardo T. Calimag acted as counsel for intervenors Roberto P. Madrigal-Acopiado and his attorney-in-fact Datu Mohaldin R.B. Sulaiman in the case of Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc.
• Atty. Calimag filed a Motion for Intervention with Leave of Court and Petition-In-Intervention, to which he appended a copy of a forged judicial decision.
• The Supreme Court detected the forgery and issued a Resolution dated 6 April 2005 requiring Atty. Calimag to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt.
• In his compliance dated 3 May 2005 entitled "Motion to Show Cause," Atty. Calimag explained that he filed the motion to seek the truth and justice, claiming he was misled in the appreciation of evidence made available to him.
• He asserted there was an honest mistake in appreciating the documents and denied any malice, welcoming a referral to the National Bureau of Investigation to identify the mastermind of the fake decision.
• The Court found these explanations insufficient and unsatisfactory, noting that the forgery was obvious and incompetent.

• Atty. Calimag argued that he filed the Motion for Intervention and Petition-In-Intervention in good faith to seek the truth and ensure justice would prevail.
• He claimed he was misled in the appreciation of the evidence (the forged judicial decision) made available to him at the time of submission.
• He asserted there was an honest mistake in the appreciation of documents and that there was never any malice intended in submitting the questioned documents.
• He welcomed the referral to the National Bureau of Investigation to identify the mastermind behind the production of the fake decision.

• N/A (The contempt proceedings were initiated by the Court on its own motion; no arguments from opposing parties are recorded in the resolution).

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether Atty. Calimag should be cited in direct contempt of court for submitting a forged judicial decision.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the submission of a forged judicial decision constitutes direct contempt under Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
  • Whether a lawyer's claim of good faith and honest mistake exempts him from liability for direct contempt.

• Procedural:
  • The Court cited Atty. Calimag in direct contempt of court. The Court found his explanation insufficient and unsatisfactory, rejecting his claims of good faith and honest mistake. Direct contempt may be punished summarily without hearing, and the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) or imprisonment of ten (10) days for failure to pay.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that filing a motion based on a spurious judicial decision constitutes direct contempt as it is misbehavior committed in the presence of the court that obstructs or interrupts proceedings and assails the authority and dignity of the court.
  • The Court ruled that lawyers, as members of the Bar and officers of the court, are presumed to know better and cannot simply rely on their clients' assertions. They have a duty to thoroughly prepare themselves on the law and facts and to verify documents with appropriate authorities.
  • The act violated the lawyer's oath and specific duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility, including the duty to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and not to mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

• Direct Contempt (Contempt in Facie Curiae) — Defined as misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge so as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court. It is conduct directed against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act, and can be punished summarily without hearing. The submission of a forged judicial decision was held to constitute such contempt.
• Lawyer's Duty of Verification and Diligence — Lawyers have a positive duty to thoroughly prepare themselves on the law and facts of their case and the evidence they will adduce. They cannot rely merely on their clients' assertions but must verify documents with appropriate authorities. The Court emphasized that the minimum counsel could have done was to verify the authenticity of the documents upon which his clients based their claims.

• "Direct contempt, or contempt in facie curiae, is misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge so as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, and can be punished summarily without hearing."
• "We cannot accept counsel's declarations of good faith and honest mistake since, as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, he is presumed to know better."
• "The minimum he could have done was to verify with the appropriate authorities the documents upon which his clients based their claims, and not have relied on his clients' assertions."
• "It is insulting to assert a claim before this Supreme Court based on an obvious and incompetent forgery and conceived by one with so primitive a sense of what normative standards would pass judicial muster."

• Silva v. Lee, A.M. No. R-225-RTJ, 26 January 1989, 169 SCRA 512 — Cited for the definition of direct contempt as conduct directed against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act.

• Rule 71, Section 1, Rules of Court — Defines direct contempt as misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt proceedings before the same, and provides for summary punishment without hearing.
• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates lawyers to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
• Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• N/A (Chief Justice Puno and Justices Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario concurred with the resolution but issued no separate opinions).