Rheem of the Philippines v Ferrer (In re: Proceedings Against Enrile...)

Facts:
The proceeding for certiorari and contempt is an offshoot of the Court of Industrial Relations’ (CIR) denial of motion to dismiss the respondent’s complaint.

The following was filed by the counsel (Atty. Jose S. Armonio) for the petitioner:
One pitfall into which this Honorable Court has repeatedly fallen whenever the question as to whether or not a particular subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations is the tendency of this Honorable Court to rely upon its own pronouncement without due regard to the statutes which delineate the jurisdiction of the industrial court. Quite often, it is overlooked that no court, not even this Honorable Court, is empowered to expand or contract through its decision the scope of its jurisdictional authority as conferred by law. This error is manifested by the decisions of this Honorable Court citing earlier rulings but without making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute governing the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. This manifestation appears in this Honorable Court's decision in the instant case. As a result, the errors committed in earlier cases dealing with the jurisdiction of the industrial court are perpetuated in subsequent cases involving the same issue . . . .

The Court ordered counsel to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Armonio’s statements violated the duty of respect to courts.

Held:
YES. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that, “it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.” Worth remembering is the attorney’s duty to the courts “can only be maintained by rendering no service involving disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold”.

In the case, the Court felt that Atty. Armonio’s language makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of the SC blindly adhere to earlier rulings without making “any reference and analysis” of the pertinent statutes of the CIR. The statements made by counsel detract much from the dignity and respect of the SC.

Atty. Armonio was admonished by the SC.