This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2016-02-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The records show that the respondent wrote the Court a letter on May 27, 2013 (or soon after his Sandiganbayan convictions), requesting that he "be allowed to optionally retire effective November 30, 2013."[16] He later requested, in another letter,[17] that the effectivity date of his optional retirement be changed from November 30, 2013 to December 31, 2013. | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The sanction has usually been set depending on whether the offensive language is viewed as contempt of court or as ethical misconduct. In Re: Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda,[47] the errant lawyer who made baseless accusations of manipulation in his letters and compliance to this Court was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Although he was further declared guilty of contempt of court, the Court prescribed no separate penalty on him, notwithstanding that he evinced no remorse and did not apologize for his actions that resulted from cases that were decided against his clients for valid reasons. In Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles,[48] the complaining State Prosecutor, despite his strong statements to support his position not being considered as direct contempt of court, was warned to be more circumspect in language. In contrast, Judge Angeles was reprimanded and handed a stern warning for the disrespectful language she used in her pleadings filed in this Court, which declared such language to be below the standard expected of a judicial officer. In Nuñez v. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga,[49] Atty. Astorga was meted a P2,000.00 fine for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for hurling insulting language against the opposing counsel. Obviously, the language was dealt with administratively, not as contempt of court. In Ng v. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar,[50] the Court prescribed a higher fine of P5,000.00 coupled with a stern warning against Atty. Alar who, in his motion for reconsideration and to inhibit, cast insults and diatribes against the NLRC First Division and its members. Yet again, the fine was a disciplinary sanction. | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Undeterred, the petitioners sought reconsideration in behalf of Surfield,[13] insisting that the CTA had jurisdiction pursuant to Section 7(a)(3) of Republic Act No. 9282;[14] and arguing that the CTA First Division manifested its "lack of understanding or respect" for the doctrine of stare decisis in not applying the ruling in Ty v. Trampe (G.R. No. 117577, December 1, 1995, 250 SCRA 500), to the effect that there was no need to file an appeal before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals pursuant to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7160. | |||||
|
2009-04-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC, Br. 121, Caloocan City in Crim. Cases Q-97-69655 to 56 for Child Abuse,[4] we held:Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses during litigation. | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, we must reiterate our ruling in Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles,[27] that while we do not begrudge a party's prerogative to initiate a case against those who, in his opinion, may have wronged him, we now remind landowners that such prerogative of instituting a criminal case against their tenants, on matters related to an agrarian dispute, must be exercised with prudence, when there are clearly lawful grounds, and only in the pursuit of truth and justice. | |||||