Halili v CIR (136 SCRA 112)

Facts:
The cases involve disputes regarding claims for overtime of more than five hundred bus drivers and
conductors of Halili Transit. The disputes were eventually settled when the contending parties reached an
Agreement where the Administratrix would transfer to the employees the title to a tract of land in Caloocan,
Rizal. The parcel of land was eventually registered in the name of the Union.
The Union, through Atty. Pineda, filed an urgent motion with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE)
requesting for authority to sell and dispose of the property.
Atty. Espinas, (the original counsel) established the award of 897 workers' claim. When Atty. Pineda appeared
for the Union in these cases, still an associate of the law firm, his appearance carried the firm name B.C.
Pineda and Associates," giving the impression that he was the principal lawyer in these cases.
Atty. Pineda, without authority from the Supreme Court but relying on the earlier authority given him by the
Ministry of Labor, filed another urgent motion, praying that the Union be authorized to sell the lot. The sale was
finally consummated, resulting in the execution of an escrow agreement.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pineda and Arbiter Valenzuela should be held in contempt.
Held:
YES. 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.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the
due administration of justice.
The Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any conduct on his part showing his unfitness for the confidence
and trust which characterize the attorney and client relations, and the practice of law before the courts, or
showing such a lack of personal honesty or of good moral character as to render him unworthy of public
confidence.
In the case, the expeditious manner by which Arbiter Valenzuela granted Atty. Pineda's motion for such
authority to sell the property makes the entire transaction dubious and irregular.
Significantly Atty. Pineda's act of filing a motion praying for authority to sell was by itself an admission on his
part that he did not possess the authority to sell the property. He could not and did not even wait for valid
authority but instead previously obtained the same from the labor arbiter whom he knew was not empowered
to so authorize.

Atty. Pineda is found guilty of indirect contempt of court for which he is sentenced to imprisonment and
directed to show cause why he should not be disbarred.