Upholding Respect for Court Orders: An Attorney's Duty and the Consequences of Disregard

The Supreme Court recently reminded the legal profession that a lawyer's duty to respect court orders is not optional. In Dumanlag v. Intong (A.C. No. 8638, October 10, 2016), the Court disciplined a lawyer not for the original complaint against him, but for his repeated failure to comply with directives from the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The case underscores a fundamental principle: lawyers are officers of the court, and their obedience to lawful orders is a core ethical obligation.

The Facts of the Case

The case began when complainant Datu Budencio E. Dumanlag, a leader of an Indigenous People's group in Bukidnon, received a letter from Atty. Winston B. Intong. The letter invited Dumanlag to a settlement and pre-litigation conference at Intong's law office regarding a potential case filed by Intong's clients. Dumanlag took offense, claiming the letter was a form of force and coercion, and filed a complaint for gross misconduct against Intong.

Dumanlag also alleged that Intong charged excessive notarization fees of P10,000.00 for corporate papers, which he could not afford. He further accused Intong of soliciting cases for gain, citing Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Atty. Intong committed gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action. However, a more significant issue emerged during the proceedings: Intong's persistent refusal to comply with the Court's orders to file his comment on the complaint.

The Court's Ruling

The Court dismissed the substantive charges against Intong. The letter he sent was "carefully worded, done in a respectful manner" and was a mere invitation to a settlement conference. Under Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), lawyers are actually encouraged to help clients settle controversies amicably. The allegation of excessive notarization fees also failed for lack of clear and convincing evidence.

However, the Court found Intong accountable for a different breach: his "propensity to ignore the lawful orders of the Court." The Court issued three separate resolutions requiring Intong to file his comment, show cause for his failure, and pay a fine of P1,000.00. All were left unheeded.

The Court emphasized that orders of the court are "not mere requests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and completely." A lawyer's disregard of such orders violates Canon 11 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers." It also breaches the lawyer's oath to "obey the laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal authorities."

While the IBP recommended a six-month suspension, the Court found this too harsh given that it was Intong's first infraction and he had partially participated in the proceedings. The Court instead reprimanded him with a warning that repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Court orders are mandatory, not optional. A lawyer who ignores a directive from the Court or the IBP commits an ethical violation, separate from the merits of the underlying case.
• Respect for courts is a continuing duty. This obligation applies not only during trial but throughout all disciplinary and administrative proceedings.
• Settlement conferences are encouraged. Lawyers should not fear sending respectful invitations to settle disputes—it is a professional duty under the CPR.
• Evidence matters. Bare allegations, such as claims of excessive fees or coercion, must be supported by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof.
• First infractions may merit leniency. The Court may impose a lighter penalty, such as a reprimand, when the lawyer's misconduct is a first offense and there is some compliance with proceedings.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.