Scribd
Upload
266 views1 page

Tiongco v. Aguilar G.R. No. 115932, January 25, 1995

Atty. Jose Tiongco was held in contempt of court for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false and malicious insinuations against the court and using scurrilous characterizations to describe the respondent judge after a decision was rendered against him. The court held that Atty. Tiongco's statements exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety and constituted a gross violation of Canon 11, which requires lawyers to observe respect due to courts and judicial officers.

Uploaded by

Rafael Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
266 views1 page

Tiongco v. Aguilar G.R. No. 115932, January 25, 1995

Atty. Jose Tiongco was held in contempt of court for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false and malicious insinuations against the court and using scurrilous characterizations to describe the respondent judge after a decision was rendered against him. The court held that Atty. Tiongco's statements exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety and constituted a gross violation of Canon 11, which requires lawyers to observe respect due to courts and judicial officers.

Uploaded by

Rafael Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TIONGCO V. AGUILAR (G.R. No.

115932, January 25, 1995) (240 SCRA 589)


FACTS: A decision was rendered against herein petitioners spouses Atty. Jose
Tiongco and Leticia Tiongco in their case for recovery of possession and damages.
Atty. Jose Tiongco as counsel for the petitioners contested alleging that the Court
did not at all read the petition in their case before it concluded that the
petition failed to sufficiently show that the respondent court had committed a
grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, he described the respondent judge as a "liar,"
"thief" perfidious," and "blasphemer". He also called the respondent judge a
"robber," "rotten manipulator," "abettor" of graft and corruption, and "cross-
eyed." Atty. Jose Tiongco was held in contempt of court for violation of Canon 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Jose Tiongco has violated Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer


shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.” Atty. Tiongco had exceeded the
bounds of decency and propriety in making the false and malicious insinuation
against the Court and his scurrilous characterizations is, indeed, all too obvious.
Such could only come from anger, if not hate, after he was not given what he
wanted. When such anger or hate is coupled with haughtiness or arrogance as when he
even pointed out other intemperate words in his petition is a gross violation of
Canon 11 of the Code of professional Responsibility.

You might also like