November 1932 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1932 > November 1932 Decisions >
G.R. No. 36026 November 16, 1932 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO.
057 Phil 517:
057 Phil 517:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 36026. November 16, 1932.]
ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE PURE CANE MOLASSES CO. (PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Greenbaum & Opisso for Appellant.
Felipe Ysmael for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. ATTORNEYS; CONTEMPT THROUGH USE OF IMPROPER LANGUAGE IN BRIEF. — In his brief and answer W.E.G. charged F. Y. with having stated in the latter’s brief that the testimony of a witness was clear, convincing and uncontradicted, knowing that it was false, said statement tending to mislead the court. Held: That such charge is of a personal nature and improper in a brief; that the attorney’s conduct should be censured, and that the statement complained of should be deleted from the record.
D E C I S I O N
IMPERIAL, J.:
On January 23, 1932, attorney Felipe Ysmael, representing the appellee, filed a motion requesting this court to punish W.E. Greenbaum, attorney for the appellant, for contempt of court for, without any justifiable motives, he deliberately used in his memorandum the following improper and unprofessional language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Lawyers are ordinarily not responsible for the conduct of their witnesses on the stand. If they choose to exaggerate or testify falsely the responsibility for as well as the consequences of their folly are their own. When, however, a lawyer quotes such testimony and relies on it in support of his case the lawyer as well as the witnesses becomes an offender against the truth. In the course of this memorandum we have referred to four different excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Garcia, all quoted in appellee’s brief, which documentary evidence shows to be untrue. When such testimony is set out in a brief it can only be for the purpose of misleading the court."cralaw virtua1aw library
The respondent attorney answered said motion and among other things stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That the undersigned denies that he alleged that appellee’s brief was misleading but that the quoted testimony referred to variously by counsel for appellee as ’uncontradicted’ and ’clear, convincing and uncontradicted’ is so misleading.
"That the memorandum in lieu of oral argument addressed itself to very important matters of fact which counsel for appellee urged upon the consideration of this High Court, was impersonal and in all respects a proper comment on the issues involved, the methods used and ends sought to be gained." — and prayed "that the motion be denied with the advertence to counsel for appellee that it is improper to refer to testimony as ’uncontradicted’ or ’clear, convincing and uncontradicted’ when in fact the testimony is disproved by the witnesses’ own letters and is entitled to no weight in the consideration of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library
The attorney for appellee replied to said answer and after alleging that it contains statements which constitute another contempt of court, prayed that both pleadings of the attorney for appellant be stricken from the record and that said attorney be declared guilty of contempt of court.
From a perusal of the memorandum above referred to we are convinced that the attorney for appellant has unnecessarily, and without justification used improper and objectionable language against the attorney for the appellee and that he has charged the latter with having quoted in his brief untrue testimony thus, attempting to mislead this court.
In passing upon the petitions under consideration we express our disapproval of W. E. Greenbaum’s conduct and we declare that he has used objectionable and reproachable language which must be, as is hereby, stricken from the record.
Let the attorneys concerned be notified of this order. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull and Vickers, JJ., concur.
"Lawyers are ordinarily not responsible for the conduct of their witnesses on the stand. If they choose to exaggerate or testify falsely the responsibility for as well as the consequences of their folly are their own. When, however, a lawyer quotes such testimony and relies on it in support of his case the lawyer as well as the witnesses becomes an offender against the truth. In the course of this memorandum we have referred to four different excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Garcia, all quoted in appellee’s brief, which documentary evidence shows to be untrue. When such testimony is set out in a brief it can only be for the purpose of misleading the court."cralaw virtua1aw library
The respondent attorney answered said motion and among other things stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That the undersigned denies that he alleged that appellee’s brief was misleading but that the quoted testimony referred to variously by counsel for appellee as ’uncontradicted’ and ’clear, convincing and uncontradicted’ is so misleading.
"That the memorandum in lieu of oral argument addressed itself to very important matters of fact which counsel for appellee urged upon the consideration of this High Court, was impersonal and in all respects a proper comment on the issues involved, the methods used and ends sought to be gained." — and prayed "that the motion be denied with the advertence to counsel for appellee that it is improper to refer to testimony as ’uncontradicted’ or ’clear, convincing and uncontradicted’ when in fact the testimony is disproved by the witnesses’ own letters and is entitled to no weight in the consideration of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library
The attorney for appellee replied to said answer and after alleging that it contains statements which constitute another contempt of court, prayed that both pleadings of the attorney for appellant be stricken from the record and that said attorney be declared guilty of contempt of court.
From a perusal of the memorandum above referred to we are convinced that the attorney for appellant has unnecessarily, and without justification used improper and objectionable language against the attorney for the appellee and that he has charged the latter with having quoted in his brief untrue testimony thus, attempting to mislead this court.
In passing upon the petitions under consideration we express our disapproval of W. E. Greenbaum’s conduct and we declare that he has used objectionable and reproachable language which must be, as is hereby, stricken from the record.
Let the attorneys concerned be notified of this order. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull and Vickers, JJ., concur.
