8/10/2019 Re Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel s.
Sorreda
1/2
22. RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S.
SORREDA
A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC. July 22, 2005
FACTS:
In a letter[1]
to the Chief Justice dated February 21, 2005, with copies
thereof furnished all the Associate
Justices of the Court and other government entities, RTC judges
and counsels listed thereunder, Atty.
Noel S. Sorreda, who identified himself as member, Philippine
Bar, expressed his frustrations over the
unfavorable outcome of and the manner by which the Court
resolved the 10 cases filed by him
recounting therein and alleging circumstances surrounding the
dismissal on February 7, 2000[2]
of the
very first case he filed with the Court, UDK-12854, entitled
Ramon Sollegue vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Frustrated with the adverse ruling thereon, Atty. Sorreda had
previously written a letter[3]
dated April 2,
2001 addressed to the Chief Justice, copy furnished all the
Associate Justices of this Court, the Court of
Appeals and the Office of the Solicitor General, denouncing the
Court, as follows:
Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the manner the Court comported
itself in the aforesaid case is totally
execrable and atrocious, entirely unworthy of the majesty and
office of the highest tribunal of the
land. It is the action not of men of reason or those who believe
in the rule of law, but rather of bullies
and tyrants from whom might is right. I say, shame on the High
Court, for shoving down a haplesssuitors throat a ruling which,
from all appearances, it could not justify.
Reacting, the Court, in an en bancResolution dated August 14,
2001,[4]
required Atty. Sorreda to show
cause why he should not be properly disciplined for degrading,
insulting and dishonoring the Supreme
Court by using vile, offensive, intemperate and contemptuous
derogatory language against it. In
response to the show cause order, Atty. Sorreda addressed two
(2) more letters to the Court dated
December 2, 2001[5]
and June 16, 2002,[6]
arguing for the propriety of his action and practically
lecturing
the Court on his concepts of Legal and Judicial Ethics and
Constitutional Law. Court merely noted said
two letters.
Persistent in imputing to the Court and its Justices offensive
and uncalled remarks, Atty. Sorreda again
went on a rampage in his letter of February 21, 2005 again
maliciously attacking the Court and itsJustices, portion of it as
follows:
Where did the Court get such brazenness, such shameless
boldness, as to dismiss on the ground that
the docket fees had not been paid, when the evidence clearly
show they in fact were? What manner
of men are you- even challenging the citizenry to inform on the
corrupt, and the bar to become like
Frodo in the fight against societys evils in your public
speeches and writings, and yet you yourselves
committing the same evils when hidden from public view. Are all
these rulings in the ten cases not
the clearest manifestation that the supreme magistrates have
bought into the What-are-we-in-
power-for mentality?
In an en bancResolution[11]
dated March 15, 2005, the Court again required Atty. Sorreda to
show cause
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in
contempt for maliciously attacking the Courtand its Justices.
By way of compliance to the second show cause order, Atty
Sorreda, in his letter of May 10, 2005[12]
,
again with copies thereof furnished the Justices, states that he
does not see the need to say any more
because the cause has already been shown as clear as day in his
earlier letter of 21 February 2005,
adding that [T]he need is for the High Tribunal to act on the
instant matter swiftly and decisively.
While admitting the great seriousness of the statements and
imputations I have leveled against the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn1
8/10/2019 Re Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel s.
Sorreda
2/2
Court, he dared the Court whether it is capable of a judgment
that will be upheld by the Supreme
Judge.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sorreda can be held guilty of
contempt due to the remarks he has made in
his letters addressed to the court.
HELD: YES.Atty. Noel S. Sorreda is found guilty both of contempt
of court and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility amounting to gross misconduct as an
officer of the court and member of the
Bar.
Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to
embarrass the court or to bring it into
disrepute have no place in a pleading. Their employment serves
no useful purpose. On the contrary,
they constitute direct contempt of court or contempt in facie
curiae and a violation of the lawyers oath
and a transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has
the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and
to promote confidence in the fair
administration of justice.[24] No less must this be and with
greater reasons in the case of the countrys
highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last bulwark of justice
and democracy.
Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his
client but to the administration of justice,
to which his clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct
ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascription can
hardly be justified nor can it have a place in the dignity of
judicial forum. Civility among members of the
legal profession is a treasured tradition that must at no time
be lost to it. Hence, Atty. Sorreda has
transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment and
constructive criticism to the detriment of the
orderly administration of justice. Free expression, after all,
must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy ones
irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even
destroy this Court and its magistrates.
Atty. Sorreda, as a citizen and as an officer of the court, is
entitled to criticize the rulings of this Court, to
point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed with error.
But, certainly, this does not give him the
unbridled license to insult and malign the Court and bring it
into disrepute. Against such an assault, the
Court is duty-bound to act to preserve its honor and dignity and
to safeguard the morals and ethics
of the legal profession.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn24
