Case Digest (G.R. No. L-68635)
Facts:
In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Wenceslao Laureta, and of Contempt Proceedings Against Eva Maravilla-Ilustre, G.R. No. 68635, May 14, 1987, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The Court issued a Per Curiam Resolution on March 12, 1987 finding Atty. Wenceslao G. Laureta guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspending him indefinitely from the practice of law, and holding Eva Maravilla-Ilustre in contempt and fining her P1,000.00; both filed Motions for Reconsideration which the Court resolved on May 14, 1987.Eva Maravilla-Ilustre had pursued remedies challenging a judgment (the Court refers to a Resolution of May 14, 1986 denying her petition) and later filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan; the Tanodbayan dismissed that complaint, a copy of which was apparently furnished to Atty. Laureta as "counsel for the complainant." The Court’s earlier actions included a show-cause Resolution dated January 29, 1987 which directed both Laureta and Ilustre to answer.
In their Answers to the show-cause order both respondents denied culpability and asserted due process defects: Atty. Laureta denied authorship or circulation of the contemptuous letters, denied representing Ilustre before the Tanodbayan after the dismissal of her case, and protested that the suspension without hearing violated his rights; Ilustre insisted that she merely investigated and peacefully publicized her perceptions of how the Court or its Division voted, and argued that contempt proceedings require criminal-type procedure and fuller opportunity to be heard.
The Court considered attendant factual indicia: process servers’ reports that copies of the Per Curiam Resolution intended for Ilustre were received at Laureta’s residence; evidence that Laureta followed up the Tanodbayan matter and filed a motion for reconsideration there; Laureta’s own admission that he talked to a DZRH reporter about the Tanodbayan charges; and multiple unsuccessful attempts by Court process servers to serve Ilustre personally at the addresses she furnished. The C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court’s disciplinary and contempt proceedings against Atty. Laureta and Eva Maravilla-Ilustre, respectively, violate their right to due process by being conducted without a trial-type hearing?
- Was Atty. Wenceslao G. Laureta guilty of grave professional misconduct warranting indefinite suspension from the practice of law?
- Was Eva Maravilla-Ilustre guilty of contempt for the letters and public a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)