Case No.

17
DENIS B. HABAWEL and ALEXIS F. MEDINA, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, FIRST DIVISION, respondent.
G.R. No. 174759.
September 7, 2011.
Petitioners Claims:
Petitioners as counsel of Surfield Development Corporation (Surfield), sought from the
Office of the City Treasurer of Mandaluyong City the refund of excess realty taxes paid from
1995 until 2000.
The petitioners posit that the phrase gross ignorance of the law was used in its strict legal
sense to emphasize the gravity of the error of law committed by the CTA First Division; and that
the statements described by the CTA First Division as abrasive, offensive, derogatory, offensive
and disrespectful should be viewed within the context of the general tone and language of their
motion for reconsideration; that their overall language was tempered, restrained and respectful
and should not be construed as a display of contumacious attitude or as a flouting or arrogant
belligerence in defiance of the court to be penalized as direct contempt; that the CTA First
Division did not appreciate the sincerity of their apology; and that they merely pointed out the
error in the decision of the CTA First Division.
Arguing that they were merely prompted by their (z)zealous advocacy and an appalling
error committed by the CTA First Division to frankly describe such error as gross ignorance of
the law, the petitioners now attribute grave abuse of discretion to the CTA First Division.
Respondents Claims:
The CTA First Division adjudged both of the petitioners guilty of direct contempt of court
for failing to uphold their duty of preserving the integrity and respect due to the courts.
The CTA First Division contends that a reading of the motion for reconsideration and the
character of the words used therein by the petitioners indicated that their statements reflected no
humility, nor were they expressive of a contrite heart; and that their submissions instead
reflected arrogance and sarcasm, that they even took the opportunity to again deride the public
respondent on the manner of how it wrote the decision.
Issue/s:
I. Was the respondent guilty of grave abuse of discretion?
II. Were the petitioners not sincere in their apology and were arrogant?
II. Were the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct contempt of
court?
Ruling per Issue:

I. No. We dismiss the petition for certiorari, and declare that the CTA First Division did
not abuse its discretion, least of all gravely, in finding that the petitioners committed direct
contempt of court.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all attorneys to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and to insist on similar conduct
by others. Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically enjoins all
attorneys thus: Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
It is conceded that an attorney or any other person may be critical of the courts and their
judges provided the criticism is made in respectful terms and through legitimate channels.
The test for criticizing a judges decision is, therefore, whether or not the criticism is bona
fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
II. Yes. No attorney worthy of the title should forget that his first and foremost status as
an officer of the Court calls upon him to be respectful and restrained in his dealings with a court
or its judge. The petitioners disdain towards the members of the CTA First Division for ruling
against their side found firm confirmation in their compliance.
It would have been ethically better for the petitioners to have then retreated and simply
admitted their blatant error upon being so informed by the CTA First Division about the
untenability of their legal position on the matter, but they still persisted by going on in their
compliance dated March 27, 2006 to also blame the CTA First Division for their perception
about the CTA First Divisions being totally oblivious of Section 7(a)(3) due to the terseness
of the Decision dated 05 January 2006.
The foregoing circumstances do not give cause for the Court to excuse the petitioners
contemptuous and offensive language. No attorney, no matter his great fame or high prestige,
should ever brand a court or judge as grossly ignorant of the law, especially if there was no
sincere or legitimate reason for doing so. Every attorney must use only fair and temperate
language in arguing a worthy position on the law, and must eschew harsh and intemperate
language that has no place in the educated ranks of the Legal Profession.
II. Yes, the statements constitute direct contempt of court meriting prompt penalty. By
such statements, the petitioners clearly and definitely overstepped the bounds of propriety as
attorneys, and disregarded their sworn duty to respect the courts. An imputation in a pleading of
gross ignorance against a court or its judge, especially in the absence of any evidence, is a
serious allegation, and constitutes direct contempt of court. It is settled that derogatory, offensive
or malicious statements contained in pleadings or written submissions presented to the same
court or judge in which the proceedings are pending are treated as direct contempt because they
are equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
interrupt the administration of justice. This is true, even if the derogatory, offensive or malicious
statements are not read in open court.

We do not hesitate to punish the petitioners for the direct contempt of court. They threw
out self-restraint and courtesy, traits that in the most trying occasions equate to rare virtues that
all members of the Legal Profession should possess and cherish. They shunted aside the nobility
of their profession. They wittingly banished the ideal that even the highest degree of zealousness
in defending the causes of clients did not permit them to cross the line between liberty and
license. Indeed, the Court has not lacked in frequently reminding the Bar that language, though
forceful, must still be dignified; and though emphatic, must remain respectful as befitting
advocates and in keeping with the dignity of the Legal Profession. It is always worthwhile to
bear in mind, too, that the language vehicle did not run short of expressions that were emphatic,
yet respectful; convincing, yet not derogatory; and illuminating, yet not offensive. No attorney
worthy of the title should forget that his first and foremost status as an officer of the Court calls
upon him to be respectful and restrained in his dealings with a court or its judge. Clearly, the
petitioners criticism of the CTA First Division was not bona fide or done in good faith, and
spilled over the walls of propriety.