You are on page 1of 1

JORGE MONTECILLO and QUIRICO DEL MAR vs. FRANCISCO M. GICA ET. AL.

G.R. No. L-36800 October 21, 1974

FACTS:

Francisco Gica filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation against Jorge Montecillo who was
represented by Atty. Quirico del Mar who won the case in the lower courts. Gica was ordered to pay
Montecillo moral damages. He then appealed to the CA where the latter reversed the same. Atty. Del
Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the CA judges
intimating that he thinks the CA justices “knowingly rendered an unjust decision” and “judgment has
been rendered through negligence” and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.

CA denied the motion and admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone with the court. The latter filed
a second MFR where he made threats once again insinuating that he will take the matter to the President
if CA will not reverse its previous order. The CA then ordered Del Mar to explain why he should not be
punished for contempt. Instead, Del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he sent to the
President asking the justices to reconsider. But the CA did not reverse its judgment.
Del Mar then filed a civil case against the three justices of the CA but such was eventually dismissed by
reason of a compromise agreement where the former agreed to pay damages to the justices. Eventually,
the CA suspended Atty. Del Mar.
Upon reaching the SC, Del Mar asked the Court to reverse his suspension as well as the CA decision as to
the Montecillo case. The SC denied both and this earned the ire of Del Mar as he demanded from the
Clerk of the Supreme Court to give him the names of the judges who voted against him.
SC then directed him to submit an explanation why he should not be disciplined. He instead tried to
justify his actions even stating that had he not been “convinced that human efforts in [pursuing the case]
will be fruitless” he would have continued with the civil case against the justices. In his explanation, he
also intimated that even the SC is part among “the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing
injustice”. Del Mar also filed a civil case against some SC justices but was dismissed.
ISSUE:

W/N Atty. Del Mar should be held in contempt of Court.

RULING:

Yes. His acts were a violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and
moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court so
essential to the proper administration of justice.

It is manifest that respondent Del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on
the flimsy ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both
Courts by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they
acted with intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client.

Atty. Del Mar was thereby suspended indefinitely.

You might also like