September 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > September 2009 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 5834 : September 29, 2009] TERESITA D. SANTECO V. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE :
[A.C. No. 5834 : September 29, 2009]
TERESITA D. SANTECO V. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 29, 2009
"A.C. No. 5834 (Teresita D. Santeco v. Atty. Luna B. Avance). - On December 11, 2003, the Court rendered a Decision finding respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance guilty of Gross Misconduct and suspending her from the practice of law for five years and ordering her to return the amount of P3,900.00, which she had demanded from complainant for the purported filing of a petition with the Court of Appeals, but she never did.
Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on February 24, 2004.
In a Letter dated March 2, 2004, complainant Teresita D. Santeco informed the Court of respondent's non-compliance with the directive in the December 11, 2003 Decision to return the sum of P3,900.00 within 10 days from notice.
In a Manifestation dated May 17, 2004, respondent informed the Court that she already returned to complainant the sum of P3,900.00 which compliance was noted by the Court in a Resolution dated July 20, 2004.
Subsequently, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Iba, Zambales wrote a letter dated November 12, 2007 addressed to then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock reporting the appearance and active participation of respondent in several cases where she misprepresented herself as Atty. Liezl Tanglao, despite her five-year suspension from the practice of law.
Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar's letter, the Court directed respondent to file her Comment thereon within 10 days from notice in a Resolution dated April 9, 2008.
On June 10, 2009, the Court again directed respondent to comply with the Resolution dated April 9, 2008; otherwise, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution based on available records on file with the Court.
To date, respondent has not complied with the foregoing directive, despite receipt of notice thereof. It bears stressing that in the December 11, 2003 Decision, the Court already took respondent to task for such recalcitrance thus:
The brazenness with which respondent circumvented the judgment rendered against her by misrepresenting herself as another lawyer to continue her practice of law, together with the wanton disregard of the Court's order to comment on Judge Amog-Bocar's letter of November 12, 2007, was a blatant demonstration of her defiance of and utter lack of respect for the Court's authority. This cannot be countenanced. To treat such willful insolence with indifference and complacency would not only send the wrong signals, but also embolden those similarly minded. To preserve their authority, safeguard public confidence and to keep inviolate their dignity, courts of justice - most of all, this Court - cannot allow such assaults of disrespect[2] to pass and must when necessary wield the inherent power to punish for contempt, a power necessary for their own protection against improper interference with the due administration of justice.[3]
Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act.[4] Civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of the opposing party. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is conduct directed against the dignity and authority of the court or judge acting judicially. It is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect.[5] Given the foregoing yardsticks, respondent's acts fall under Section 3 (b), (d) and (e),[6] Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. A person found guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank may be punished by a fine not exceeding P30,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.[7]
ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby found guilty of indirect contempt and is hereby FINED in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.
Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Resolution, and be it duly recorded in the personal file of respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance."
Quisumbing, J., on official leave.
Brion, J., on leave.
"A.C. No. 5834 (Teresita D. Santeco v. Atty. Luna B. Avance). - On December 11, 2003, the Court rendered a Decision finding respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance guilty of Gross Misconduct and suspending her from the practice of law for five years and ordering her to return the amount of P3,900.00, which she had demanded from complainant for the purported filing of a petition with the Court of Appeals, but she never did.
Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on February 24, 2004.
In a Letter dated March 2, 2004, complainant Teresita D. Santeco informed the Court of respondent's non-compliance with the directive in the December 11, 2003 Decision to return the sum of P3,900.00 within 10 days from notice.
In a Manifestation dated May 17, 2004, respondent informed the Court that she already returned to complainant the sum of P3,900.00 which compliance was noted by the Court in a Resolution dated July 20, 2004.
Subsequently, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Iba, Zambales wrote a letter dated November 12, 2007 addressed to then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock reporting the appearance and active participation of respondent in several cases where she misprepresented herself as Atty. Liezl Tanglao, despite her five-year suspension from the practice of law.
Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar's letter, the Court directed respondent to file her Comment thereon within 10 days from notice in a Resolution dated April 9, 2008.
On June 10, 2009, the Court again directed respondent to comply with the Resolution dated April 9, 2008; otherwise, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution based on available records on file with the Court.
To date, respondent has not complied with the foregoing directive, despite receipt of notice thereof. It bears stressing that in the December 11, 2003 Decision, the Court already took respondent to task for such recalcitrance thus:
Respondent's consistent refusal to comply with lawful orders in the proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline, with no explanation to justify them, not only underscores her utter lack of respect for authority, but also a defiance for law and order which is at the very core of her profession. Such defiance is anathema to those who seek a career in the administration of justice because obedience to the dictates of the law and justice is demanded of every lawyer. How else would respondent even endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow even simple directives? The first and foremost command of the Code of Professional Responsibility could not be any clearer:CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
The inevitable conclusion is that respondent gravely abused the confidence that complainant reposed in her and with palpable bad faith. Her persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her without any explanation for doing so, is contumacious conduct which merits no compassion. [1](Emphasis and italics supplied)
The brazenness with which respondent circumvented the judgment rendered against her by misrepresenting herself as another lawyer to continue her practice of law, together with the wanton disregard of the Court's order to comment on Judge Amog-Bocar's letter of November 12, 2007, was a blatant demonstration of her defiance of and utter lack of respect for the Court's authority. This cannot be countenanced. To treat such willful insolence with indifference and complacency would not only send the wrong signals, but also embolden those similarly minded. To preserve their authority, safeguard public confidence and to keep inviolate their dignity, courts of justice - most of all, this Court - cannot allow such assaults of disrespect[2] to pass and must when necessary wield the inherent power to punish for contempt, a power necessary for their own protection against improper interference with the due administration of justice.[3]
Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act.[4] Civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of the opposing party. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is conduct directed against the dignity and authority of the court or judge acting judicially. It is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect.[5] Given the foregoing yardsticks, respondent's acts fall under Section 3 (b), (d) and (e),[6] Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. A person found guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank may be punished by a fine not exceeding P30,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.[7]
ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby found guilty of indirect contempt and is hereby FINED in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.
Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Resolution, and be it duly recorded in the personal file of respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance."
Quisumbing, J., on official leave.
Brion, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Santeco v. Avance, A.C. No. 5834. December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 6, 15.
[2] See Bildner v. llusorio, G.R. No. 157384. June 5, 2009.
[3] In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado Macasaet published in Malaya dated September 18, 19. 20 and 21, 2007, A.M. No. 07-09- 13-SC, August 8. 2008, 561 SCRA 395.
[4] Montenegro v, Montenegro, G.R. No. 156829, June 8, 2004,431 SCRA 415, 424.
[5] Id. at 425.
[6] SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. - After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
x x x x
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court x x x;
x x x x
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice:
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority; x x x
[7] Section 7, Rule 71, Rules of Court.
