G.R. No. 249500 - People vs. Concepcion y Arguelles

On June 22, 1989, a petition for certiorari was filed by counsel for Khalyxto Perez Maglasang, but it failed to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88: the required P316.50 legal fees were not paid and duplicate originals or certified true copies of the challenged decision and orders were not attached. The petition was dismissed on July 26, 1989.
On September 9, 1989, counsel moved for reconsideration, paid the P316.50 fee, furnished a duplicate copy of the trial court decision, and submitted his IBP receipt, but still did not provide certified copies of all challenged orders. The motion was denied with finality on October 18, 1989.

On December 19, 1989, counsel filed a “complaint” with the Office of the President of the Philippines, alleging that the five Justices of the Court’s Second Division were biased, ignorant of the law, “Marcos-appointees” sabotaging the Aquino Administration, and denying equal justice to his client.
The complaint used strong, scurrilous language, improperly invoked the President’s power to discipline or remove Justices, and contained allegations beyond the trial court record.

On February 7, 1990, the Supreme Court issued an order requiring Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court or dealt with administratively for improper conduct.
On March 21, 1990, he filed an “Opposition,” asserting (a) his complaint was constructive criticism, (b) the Court had no jurisdiction to cite him for contempt since the Justices were “respondents,” and (c) a contempt order is a weapon maliciously used by judges.

Did Atty. Castellano’s allegations, language, and filing of an administrative complaint against Supreme Court Justices constitute contempt of court or improper conduct under the rules governing lawyers?
Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to discipline an officer of the Court for filing a complaint against its Justices before the Office of the President?