) filed by Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta (

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court holds Atty. Acosta guilty of indirect contempt of court for improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Atty. Acosta violated Sections 2, 14, and 42, as well as the provisions on the Responsible Use of Social Media, of the CPRA Aside from constituting indirect contempt, Atty. Acosta's acts likewise violated the provisions of the CPRA, [41] particularly Sections 2, 14, and 42, Canon II thereof: SECTION 2. Dignified conduct . A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts , tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession. SECTION 14. Remedy for grievances; insinuation of improper motive . A lawyer shall submit grievances against any officer of a court, tribunal, or other government agency only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities . Statements insinuating improper motive on the part of any such officer, which are not supported by substantial evidence, shall be ground for disciplinary action. SECTION 42. Prohibition against influence through social media . A lawyer shall not communicate , whether directly or indirectly, with an officer of any court, tribunal, or other government agency through social media to influence the latter's performance of official duties . (Emphasis supplied.) Here, Atty. Acosta failed to give the respect that is due to the Court. When she could not get what she wanted from the Court, she turned to the public to gain sympathy by vilifying the Court and painting herself and her office as the victims of the Court's purported abuse of its authority. She charged the Court with no less than violation of the Constitution, which it is duty-bound to safeguard and uphold. In so doing, she failed to observe Section 14, Canon II of the CPRA, which mandates that a lawyer shall submit his or her grievance only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities. Even if Atty. Acosta wrote to Chief Justice Gesmundo, without waiting for the Chief Justice's or the Court's action, Atty. Acosta improperly publicized the PAO's letters in tri-media, thereby exerting undue influence on the Court. Worse, she insinuated improper and unsubstantiated motives against the Court and publicly denounced it for alleged "abuse of authority." As previously discussed, Atty. Acosta impressed upon the public that in adopting Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA, the Members of the Court intended to jeopardize unity, progress, and peace, to sow dissent and disorder, and to weaken the PAO. She also accused the Court of endangering the very lives and limbs of the public attorneys. These insinuations are not o