Maglasang vs.

People

[G.R. No. 90083, October 4, 1990]

Facts:

Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. His counsel,
Atty. Castellano, filed for a petition for certiorari through registered mail. Due to non-compliance with
the requirements, the court dismissed the petition and a motion for reconsideration.

Atty. Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of the President where he accused the five
justices of the 2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust
judgments. He accused the court of sabotaging the Aquino administration for being Marcos appointees,
and robbing the Filipino people genuine justice and democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this to
protect the judge who was impleaded in the petition and for money reasons. He alleges further that the
court is too expensive to be reached by ordinary men. The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict
and meticulous.

When asked to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the
complaint was constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict
practices of the justices concerned. He also said that the justices have no jurisdiction over his act and
that they should just answer the complaint. The SC found him guilty of contempt and improper conduct
and ordered to pay P1, 000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to suffer six months suspension.

Issue: Whether or not the Atty. Castellano’s acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: YES

The Court does not pretend to be immune from criticisms. After all, it is through the criticism of
its actions that the Court, composed of fallible mortals, hopes to correct whatever mistake it may have
unwittingly committed. But then again, "it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be
bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair
criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts."

The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond the bounds of
constructive criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his client. They cast aspersion on
the Court’s integrity as a neutral and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies before it.

The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in the filing of the petition for certiorari did not
render his negligence excusable. It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Castellano
irresponsibly ascribed to the members of the Court, but his inexcusable negligence and incompetence.

As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of
the Court just to keep the confidence of his client.

Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of government – separation
of power - has been lost. He should know that not even the President of the Philippines can pass
judgment on any of the Court’s acts.