Case Digest (G.R. No. 254800)
Facts:
Bryan Ta-Ala y Constantino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 254800, January 14, 2025, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing. The case arises from a Decision dated June 20, 2022 (the "Decision") that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought to challenge by filing an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration dated October 5, 2022. The OSG's motion was signed and filed by Assistant Solicitor General Bernard G. Hernandez, Senior State Solicitor Josephine D. Arias, and State Solicitor Donna Diana R. Dumpit-Lipit.By Resolution dated April 15, 2024 the Court denied the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with finality and ordered ASG Hernandez, Senior State Solicitor Arias, and State Solicitor Dumpit-Lipit to show cause within ten days why they should not be held in contempt for using what the Court characterized as disrespectful, offensive, abusive and degrading language in their motion; the April 15, 2024 Resolution also directed that the lawyers show cause why they should not be held liable under provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and Section 3, Rule 7 of the 2019 Rules of Court.
In compliance, the three OSG lawyers filed a Compliance dated August 7, 2024 in which they (a) explained the context and asserted that their arguments were made with respect, (b) offered sincere apologies for any unintended offense, (c) described circumstances surrounding preparation and filing (including time pressure, electronic and wet signatures, and travel), and (d) urged that ASG Hernandez be allowed to retire in peace while Senior State Solicitor Arias accepted primary responsibility. They also argued the motion raised issues of public import and claimed no intent to demean the Court.
The Court, through the present Resolution authored by Justice Lazaro-Javier, examined the lawyers' submissions against Section 3, Rule 7 of the 2019 Rules of Court, relevant Canons of the CPRA (Canons II, III, and VI), and controlling precedents (notably Spouses Mariano v. Atty. Abrajano). The Court found that by affixing signatures without reviewing the pleading the lawyers ran afoul of Section 3, Rule 7 and that ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Assistant Solicitor General Bernard G. Hernandez, Senior State Solicitor Josephine D. Arias, and State Solicitor Donna Diana R. Dumpit-Lipit violate Section 3, Rule 7 of the 2019 Rules of Court and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability by the language used and by signing the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration without proper review?
- If so, what disposition is warranted — should they be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned, or is acceptance o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)