The Supreme Court has penalized the lawyer who filed a petition seeking for legalization of same-sex marriage in the country over his improper attire.
In a five-page resolution, the SC resolved to cite lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III in contempt for attending the preliminary conference on the case last June 19 wearing cropped jeans, a jacket, and loafers without socks.
“Wherefore, this Court finds Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III guilty of direct contempt of Court. He is hereby admonished to properly conduct himself in court and to be more circumspect of the duties attendant to his being a lawyer,” the resolution stated.
The tribunal has sternly warned Falcis “that any further contemptuous acts shall be dealt with more severely.”
The SC also ordered that the contempt citation be “included in the personal record” of Falcis and “entered in his file in the Office of the Bar Confidant.”
In issuing the order, the SC cited Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers which requires them to “observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and [to] insist on similar conduct by others.”
“This duty encompasses appearances before the court in proper attire,” it said.
“This Court does not insist on sartorial pomposity. It does not prescribe immutable minutiae for physical appearance. Still, professional courtesy demands that persons, especially lawyers, having business before courts, act with discretion and manifest this discretion in their choice of apparel,” the SC ruled.
The high court ruled that preliminary conferences and oral arguments are “official judicial functions” where all parties present are required “to observe solemnities of these proceedings.”
“Atty. Falcis has miserably failed to accord this Court and this clients’ cause the dignity and respect they deserve,” the high court said.
In the said preliminary conference, which was held in preparation for the oral arguments on same-sex marriage case, Falcis appeared in “a casual jacket, cropped jeans, and loafers without socks.”
When Associate Justice Marvic Leonen questioned him for his attire, the lawyer claimed that he had attended a meeting with advocates in Makati earlier that day.
The SC also questioned Falcis over his failure to rise and manifest his presence when appearances for the parties were called into order. He also failed to rise during the initial round of questioning by the justices.
When responding to the justices, Falcis failed to address them in customary courtesies.
“Throughout the proceedings, he acted as though he was unprepared and without knowledge of the decorum typical to appearing in court,” the SC said.
Because of this, the SC initiated contempt proceedings against the lawyer.