SONIC STEEL v. ATTY.

NONATUS CHUA
FACTS:
 This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Sonic Steel Industries against Atty. Nonnatus Chua.
The respondent is the Corporate Legal Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary of Steel
Corporation (STEELCORP)
 Controversy arose when, STEELCORP, with the assistance of the National Bureau of
Investigation, applied for and was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City,
Branch 17, a Search Warrant directed against SONIC STEEL.
 In the complaint, SONIC STEEL alleged that STEELCORP is the exclusive licensee of Philippine
Patent No. 16269 and Atty. Chua deliberately misled the court as well as the DOJ because
Letters Patent No. hasal ready lapsed. The respondent intentionally deceived said court
because even the first page of the patent clearly show that the patent already lapsed.
 In the complaint, the TSN was included wherein searching questions by Judge Melchor Sadang
of the RTC of Cavite, complainant asserts that respondent deliberately misled and deceived the
court in refusing to provide a copy of Philippine Patent No. 16269.
 So during the hearing of the case between the respondent and petitioner, Atty. Nonnatus Chua
was quick to answer every question not directed to him by the judge, since the question was
directed to Mr. Lorenzana who was the executive vice president of STEEL CORP.
 In a TSN submitted to the court, the judge asked Mr. Lorenzana regarding the patent of said
products STEELCORP wa quick to anser thejudge,”WE RESERVE THE PRESENTATION OF
TRADEMARK LICENSE, YOUR HONOR.” And “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT IT YOUR
HONOR”, when asked for the document regarding the patent on the Hot Dip Coating of
Ferrous Strands.
 So, Sonic Steel filed a complaint against Atty. Chua in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which
held that he should be suspended for three months in the practice of law and that a repetition
of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt more seriously.

 ISSUE: W/N ATTY CHUA VIOLATED CANON 1, RULE 1 and CANON 10, RULE 10.0a
HELD:
 A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. A lawyer shall do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled
by an artifice.
 Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act
as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are
expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the court.
 In the present case, it appears that respondent claimed or made to appear that STEELCORP was
the licensee of the technical information and the patent on Hot Dip Coating of Ferrous Strands
or Philippine Patent No. 16269. However, an extensive investigation made by the IBP’s
Commission on Bar Discipline showed that STEELCORP only has rights as a licensee of the
technical information and not the rights as a licensee of the patent
 It would also appear that respondent was wanting in candor as regards his dealings with the
lower court.
 It is worth underscoring that although Judge Sadang addressed his questions solely to Mr.
Lorenzana, respondent was conveniently quick to interrupt and manifest his client’s reservation
to present the trademark license. Respondent was equally swift to end Judge Sadang’s inquiry
over the patent by reserving the right to present the same at another time.
 Premises considered, respondent Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months with ADMONITION that a repetition of the same or similar act
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
PLEADING CONTAINING DEROGATORY, OFFENSIVE, OR MALICIOUS STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE
COURT OR JUDGE IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDINGS

WICKER v. ARCANGEL

 Kelly Wicker, brought suit in the Regional Trial Court of Makati against the LFS Enterprises, Inc.
for the annulment of certain deeds.
 The case was formerly presided over Judge Ignacio Capulong but was later replaced by
respondent Judge Arcangel, the respondent.
 Wicker’s Counsel Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, filed a MOTION SEEKING THE INHIBITION OF
RESPONDENT JUDGE ARCANGEL from the consideration of the case. The motion alleged in
pertinent:
1. Before respondent judge took over, Judge Capulong already had a full grasp of the case
was eased out of his station
2. In one hearing, Acting Presiding Judge had not yet reported to his station and in that
hearing the cousenl for LFS Enterprises must have known that Judge Arcangel would be
absent did not likewise appear
3. Acting Presiding Judge was personally recruited from the South by Atty. Santos
4. Plaintiffs have reason to doubt the partiality and integrity of His honor.
 Considering the allegations to be malicious, derogatory and contemptuous, respondent judge
ordered both counsel and client to appear before him to show cause why they should not be
cited for contempt of court
 Atty. Rayos claimed that the allegations in the motion did not necessarily express his views
because he merely signed the motion in a representative capacity, in other words, just
lawyering, for Kelly Wicker, who said in a note to him that a young man possibly employed by
the Court had advised him to have the case reraffled,
 Finding petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory, respondent judge, in an order dated, held them
guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to
pay a fine of P100.00
 Kelly Wicker and Atty. Orlando A. Rayos contend that respondent judge committed a grave
abuse of his discretion in citing them for contempt.
 Respondent judge alleges that he took over as:
o Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134 by virtue of
Administrative Order No. 154-93 dated September 2, 1993 of this Court and not
because, as petitioners alleged, he was personally recruited from the South by Atty.
Santos and/or his wife, Atty. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos;
o when all male personnel of his court were presented to petitioner Kelly Wicker he failed
to pick out the young man who was the alleged source of the remarks prompting the
filing of the motion for inhibition

ISSUE: DOES A DEROGATORY PLEADING FILED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEING TRIED BY THE JUDGE
CONSTITUE DIRECT CONTEMPT?

HELD:
 Yes, the instance in this case constitute an instance of direct contempt, since it involves a
pleading allegedly containing derogatory, offensive, or malicious statements submitted to
the court or judge in which the proceedings are.
  Such pleading = misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
interrupt the proceedings before the same. Within the meaning of Rule 71, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court, and therefore, direct contempt.

INDIRECT OR CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT DIRECT CONTEMPT

- the contemnor may be punished only
after a charge in wiring has been filed
and an opportunity given to the accused
to be heard by himself or counsel
- appealable
- the respondent may be summarily
adjudged in contempt
- only judgement of contempt by MTCs,
MCTCs, and METCs are appeallble

 NOTE: If the pleading was filed in another court, the contempt is only INDIRECT because it is not
misbehavior in the presence or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of
justice.

 Consistent with the foregoing principles and based on the abovementioned facts, the Court
sustains Judge Arcangel’s finding that petitioners are guilty of contempt.

A reading of the allegations in petitioners motion for inhibition, particularly the following
paragraphs thereof:
1. These allegations are derogatory to the integrity and honor of respondent judge and
constitute an unwarranted criticism of the administration of justice in this country. They
suggest that lawyers, if they are well connected, can manipulate the assignment of judges to
their advantage. The truth is that the assignments of Judges Arcangel and Capulong were
made by this Court, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 154-93.
Atty. Rayos, however, cannot evade responsibility for the allegations in question. As a lawyer,
he is not just an instrument of his client. Atty. Rayos duty to the courts is not secondary to
that of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins him to observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
Based on Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as much