Pantanosas, Jr. vs. Pamatong

A lawyer's duty to maintain respect toward the courts prohibits the use of scandalous, offensive, or menacing language in pleadings and judicial proceedings, and lawyers must submit grievances against judges only to proper authorities rather than resorting to media publicity; violations of these duties warrant suspension from the practice of law.

Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr. presided over the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20, where Atty. Elly L. Pamatong appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2006-176, an action for injunction with damages. During a hearing on September 8, 2006 regarding an application for a temporary restraining order, Judge Pantanosas allegedly directed Pamatong to remove his Muslim headwear (copia) in open court, allegedly accompanying the directive with anti-Islamic comments when Pamatong declined on religious grounds. Three days later, Pamatong filed a motion for inhibition containing scathing personal attacks against the judge, accusing him of corruption and calling him a disgrace to the judicial system, which prompted the judge to file a disbarment complaint for professional misconduct.

• During the hearing on September 8, 2006 for the application of a temporary restraining order in Civil Case No. 2006-176, Judge Pantanosas allegedly asked respondent Pamatong to remove his copia (a hat worn by Muslims) in open court.
• Respondent Pamatong requested exemption allegedly due to religious grounds and embarrassment towards his "bald pate," which the judge initially obliged with a caveat that at the next hearing, he would no longer tolerate the wearing of the copia inside the courtroom.
• On September 11, 2006, respondent Pamatong filed an Extremely Urgent Motion/Demand for Inhibition or Recusal containing the following remarks: "I never encountered a Judge who appears to be as corrupt as you are, thereby giving me the impression that you are a disgrace to the Judicial System of this land who does not deserved (sic) to be a member of the Philippine Bar at all."
• On the same day, complainant Pantanosas issued an Order denying the Motion for Inhibition and ordering respondent Pamatong to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt of court.
• On September 15, 2006, complainant Pantanosas filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Supreme Court on the grounds of: (i) violation of Canon 8 of the CPR for the language employed in the Motion for Inhibition; and (ii) violation of Canons 1 and 11 of the CPR for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct by supposedly causing the publication of an alleged bribe in a local newspaper and maliciously imputing motives to the judge.
• In his Comment, respondent Pamatong alleged that he filed a complaint against Judge Pantanosas with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on September 12, 2006, which was eventually dismissed for lack of merit.
• Respondent Pamatong also alleged that he caused the filing of complaints with the Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Ombudsman regarding the judge's conduct.
• By way of counter-complaint, respondent Pamatong alleged that Judge Pantanosas solicited One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for the issuance of a TRO and subjected him to anti-Islamic comments and humiliating conduct.
• The OCA dismissed Pamatong's complaint against the judge through a Resolution dated February 28, 2007, finding the complaint devoid of merit because Pamatong did not present any evidence, other than his bare allegation, to prove the charge of bribery.

• Pamatong violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive, and scandalous language in his Motion for Inhibition, calling the judge "corrupt" and "a disgrace to the Judicial System."
• Pamatong violated Canons 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct through the publication of alleged bribery allegations in a local newspaper and maliciously imputing motives to the judge, thereby casting dishonor upon and promoting distrust in the judicial system.
• The language employed in the motion was personally slanderous and constituted a breach of the lawyer's duty to maintain respect toward the courts.

• The actual courtroom demeanor of Judge Pantanosas during the September 8, 2006 hearing was overbearing, arrogant, and derogatory, including anti-Islamic comments and humiliating conduct when the respondent declined to remove his religious headwear.
• Judge Pantanosas solicited a One Million Peso bribe in exchange for issuing a temporary restraining order during a meeting in chambers two days before the hearing, and the allegations of corruption were true and made in good faith.
• By way of counter-complaint, the judge violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct through discriminatory conduct, solicitation of bribes, and behavior that violated the respondent's religious freedom.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent violated Canon 8 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath by using abusive, offensive, and scandalous language against the judge in his pleadings and judicial proceedings.
  • Whether respondent violated Rule 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by resorting to media publicity to air grievances against the judge instead of submitting such grievances to the proper authorities.
  • What is the appropriate penalty for the violations committed.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent Pamatong guilty of violating Canon 8 (Rule 8.01) and Canon 11 (Rules 11.03, 11.04, and 11.05) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath for using scandalous and offensive language against the judge in his Motion for Inhibition, specifically for calling the judge "corrupt" and "a disgrace to the Judicial System."
  • The Court held that resorting to media publicity to air grievances against the judge, instead of submitting them to the proper authorities, violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11, especially since the respondent had already lodged a complaint with the OCA and had no reason to divulge his grievances before the public.
  • The Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years, modifying the IBP's recommendation of three (3) years based on precedents in similar cases, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.

• Respect for Courts (Canon 11) — Lawyers must maintain a respectful attitude toward courts not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of the court's supreme importance and the preservation of public faith in the judiciary; this duty is enshrined in the Lawyer's Oath which requires good fidelity towards the courts.
• Limits on Criticism of Judges — While lawyers have the right, both as officers of the court and as citizens, to criticize judicial acts in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels, such criticisms must not spill over the walls of decency and propriety, and must not use unnecessary language that promotes distrust in the administration of justice.
• Duty to Client vs. Administration of Justice — A lawyer's duty to his client's success is wholly subordinate to the administration of justice; lawyers must help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice.
• Proper Channels for Grievances (Rule 11.05) — Lawyers shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only, and resorting to media publicity constitutes a violation of this duty and is highly irresponsible.

• "The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved only for those who meet the twin standards of legal proficiency and morality."
• "A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, 'like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice.' His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, 'not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.'"
• "As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice."
• "Lawyers have the right, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, closely linked to such rule is the cardinal condition that criticisms, no matter how truthful, shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety."
• "True, lawyers must always remain vigilant against unscrupulous officers of the law. However, the purification of our justice system from venal elements must not come at the expense of decency, and worse, the discrediting of the very system that it seeks to protect."

• Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago — Cited for the principle that lawyers must uphold the dignity and authority of courts and not promote distrust in the administration of justice, and that faith in the courts is essential to proper administration of justice.
• Judge Lacurom v. Atty. Jacoba — Applied as controlling precedent for similar facts involving offensive language in motions; respondent therein was suspended for two (2) years for using disrespectful language toward a judge.
• Judge Baculi v. Atty. Battung — Cited as precedent for suspension for disrespectful conduct and use of offensive language toward a judge, specifically for shouting and disrupting court proceedings.
• Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo — Cited as precedent for suspension for resorting to press conferences and media publicity instead of proper judicial remedies to air grievances against a judge.
• Sps. Garcia v. Bala — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
• Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay — Cited for the principle that the Court has the power and duty to control and regulate the practice of law to protect public welfare.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
• Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from using language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper in his professional dealings.
• Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers.
• Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires that a lawyer's language be dignified and respectful, and prohibits the use of unnecessary language that promotes high esteem in the courts.
• Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
• Rule 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.
• Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from making public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
• Lawyer's Oath — Requires lawyers to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts.