Case Digest (G.R. No. 69494)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Erlinda I. Bildner and Maximo K. Ilusorio against respondents Erlinda K. Ilusorio (their mother) and siblings Ramon K. Ilusorio, Marietta K. Ilusorio, Shereen K. Ilusorio, Cecilia A. BisuAa, and Atty. Manuel R. Singson. The events leading to the case began with a series of appeals stemming from a habeas corpus petition filed by Erlinda K. Ilusorio regarding the custody of her husband, Potenciano Ilusorio. The Court of Appeals had denied her petition, concluding that Potenciano was of sound mind and not unlawfully restrained. However, the Court did grant visitation rights, which were later nullified by the Supreme Court’s ruling on May 12, 2000. Erlinda Ilusorio’s attempts to contest this decision resulted in numerous subsequent motions and letters directed to the Supreme Court, which she believed were legitimate efforts to advocate for her husband's well-being. These continuous petitions and communications were interpreted by the petitioners as
Case Digest (G.R. No. 69494)
Facts:
- Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Erlinda I. Bildner and Maximo K. Ilusorio.
- Respondents:
- Erlinda K. Ilusorio (mother of some of the family respondents),
- Ramon K. Ilusorio, Marietta K. Ilusorio, Shereen K. Ilusorio, Cecilia A. Bisuaa, and
- Attorney Manuel R. Singson.
- Background of the Contempt Allegations
- The petition was filed directly with the Supreme Court under Rule 71, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
- Allegations revolved around alleged indirect contempt based on a series of actions and statements made by respondent Erlinda Ilusorio during and after the habeas corpus proceedings.
- The actions in question arose from the proceedings in G.R. Nos. 139789 and 139808 (appeals from a habeas corpus decision regarding custody of Potenciano Ilusorio).
- Factual Timeline and Conduct in the Habeas Corpus Case
- On or after the May 12, 2000 decision, Erlinda Ilusorio:
- Moved for reconsideration, reiterating her plea for a writ of habeas corpus and requesting that her daughters desist from preventing her from seeing her husband.
- Filed various motions including a Motion to Set Case for Preliminary Conference and an Urgent Manifestation on August 25, 2000.
- Sought through subsequent motions the production and medical examination of her husband, which were denied by the Court.
- Erlinda Ilusorio escalated her actions by:
- Persistently filing repetitive and unmeritorious motions and pleas that the Court eventually warned would not be entertained further.
- Sending personal letters to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in February and April 2001, wherein she sought assistance to see her husband and expressed dissatisfaction with the Court’s rigid adherence to forms and procedure.
- Publication of the Book "On the Edge of Heaven":
- The book, published by the PI-EKI Foundation (with its board including Ramon, Marietta, Shereen, and Cecilia), contained a Postscript titled “Where is Justice?”
- The excerpts included:
- Claims that the Supreme Court “broke up my family.”
- Questions about whether justice was for sale or sold, thereby casting aspersions on the integrity of the Court.
- Detailed grievances including a suggestion that the Court intentionally delayed and mishandled her motions, undermining the Family Code and favoring wealthy litigants.
- Disbarment Complaint Against Atty. Manuel R. Singson
- The complaint accused Atty. Singson of attempted bribery and gross misconduct in connection with Civil Case No. 4537-R (Ramon K. Ilusorio v. Baguio Country Club).
- Specific allegations included:
- Atty. Singson allegedly made repeated, untimely phone calls to Judge Antonio Reyes seeking to influence a favorable ruling for his client.
- Testimonies and evidentiary support came from:
- A transcript of proceedings during the May 31, 2000 hearing, where Judge Reyes noted the bribery attempt.
- An affidavit of Judge Reyes, which detailed the manner and timing of the calls, including an alleged bribe offer amounting to PhP 500,000.
- An affidavit of Atty. Oscar Sevilla recounting a conversation where Atty. Singson revealed his intentions through the medium of a mutual law school acquaintance.
- Atty. Singson defended himself by contending that his communications were merely follow-ups regarding case status and scheduling matters, and that any allegations of bribery were unfounded.
- Respondents’ Comments and Defense
- Respondents admitted to filing the motions, manifestations, and personal letters but asserted that:
- The language used was respectful and constituted the exercise of a litigant’s right to avail all legal remedies.
- The actions were “made in good faith” to secure custody of Erlinda Ilusorio’s husband and to obtain adequate medical care.
- On the bribery allegations, respondents maintained:
- The telephone calls and contacts with Judge Reyes were standard and in response to logistical needs (such as postponements or scheduling inquiries).
- The allegation of bribery was based on hearsay, lacking confirmation by judicial or bar disciplinary authorities.
Issues:
- Whether the respondents, particularly Erlinda Ilusorio, are guilty of indirect contempt of court for:
- Repeatedly filing redundant and unmeritorious motions.
- Issuing letters to high-ranking judicial officials.
- Publishing a book with statements that disparaged the Court’s integrity and decisions.
- Whether Atty. Manuel R. Singson should be administratively disciplined or disbarred based on allegations that he:
- Attempted to influence Judge Antonio Reyes by making numerous and untimely communications.
- Engaged in conduct amounting to attempted bribery through such communications, thereby breaching professional ethics.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)