Case Digest (G.R. No. L-78926)
Facts:
In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto in G.R. No. 78926, entitled "Facunda Palmario v. Social Security System, et al.," G.R. No. 78926, April 06, 1988, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The underlying administrative-employment dispute concerned Facunda Palmario (petitioner in the original case) and the Social Security System (SSS) (respondent in the original case), with issues having been litigated before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In an earlier separate matter, Facunda Palmario had sought relief in G.R. No. 65862 (Facunda Palmario v. Civil Service Commission, et al.); that petition was dismissed by the Court on March 7, 1984 for raising factual issues, lacking legal basis, and for lack of merit. The CSC had modified the SSS decision and treated Palmario as having resigned rather than being dismissed after she failed to return to work following a contested transfer and leave requests in late 1978 and early 1979.
Palmario filed a Petition to Reopen in G.R. No. 65862 on July 7, 1987, which the Court dismissed by resolution dated July 27, 1987 as virtually reiterating the earlier, finally dismissed petition. Her subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. Palmario and her counsel, Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto, thereafter filed multiple pleadings and motions (memoranda, motions for leave, a “Special and Very Urgent Manifestation,” a “Final Plea for the Integrity of the Honorable Supreme Court,” and several motions to vacate or resolve), beginning August 27, 1987 and extending into early 1988; the Court repeatedly noted or denied these filings in view of the earlier final dismissal.
The Supreme Court initiated motu proprio disciplinary proceedings because of what it characterized as the improvident, contemptuous, and threatening language used by Atty. Jacinto in his pleadings in the Palmario matter. The Court summarized the offending rhetoric from counsel’s filings, including warnings of a “looming danger,” assertions that the Court would be “better if inexistent,” threats to give the media “news of the most nauseating kind,” and comparisons of the Court to a “hole in the head.” Citing the need to preserve decorum and public confidence in the judiciary and invoking prior disciplinary precedent, the Court proceeded to sanction counsel.
The Supreme Court, acting en banc, resolved to suspend Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto from the pract...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court initiate disciplinary proceedings motu proprio against a counsel for improvident, contemptuous language used in pleadings?
- Did Atty. Ponciano B. Jacinto's language and conduct warrant suspension and prohibition from th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)