Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

CANON 10 complainant, which is the plaintiff in Civil Case No.

by: Rowneylin SJ. Sia Q-98-35326, does not dispute respondents

allegation that the latter and his client attached to
Rudecon Management Corporation and Atty. their Answer in Intervention a copy of their
Rugelio D. Tacorda v. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444.

(A.C. No. 6403, August 31, 2004) Complainants seek the disbarment or
suspension of respondent from the practice of law
FACTS: for his having allegedly violated Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, however, in
On September 3, 1998, Sisenando Singson, administrative cases for disbarment or suspension
represented by herein respondent Atty. Manuel N. against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
Camacho, filed with the Regional Trial Court clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of
(RTC) of Quezon City a complaint against herein proof rests upon the complainant. Moreover, an
complainant Rudecon Management Corporation for administrative case against a lawyer must show the
damages and reconveyance, docketed as Civil Case dubious character of the act done as well as of the
No. Q-98-35444. The case was originally raffled to motivation thereof. In the present case, complainant
Branch 79, RTC, Quezon City but was eventually failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to
re-raffled to Branch 85 of the same court. show that respondent willfully and deliberately
resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest
On September 21, 1998, Singson, again conduct in violation of the standards of honesty as
represented by Atty. Camacho, filed with Branch provided for by the Code of Professional
78, RTC, Quezon City a "Motion for Intervention Responsibility which would have warranted the
(With Attached Answer in Intervention With imposition of administrative sanction against him.
Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory
Counterclaim)" in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326, Wherefore, Resolution No. XVI-2004-43
entitled, "Rudecon Management dated February 27, 2004 of the Integrated Bar of the
Corporation,plaintiff-appellee vs. Ramon M. Philippines is SET ASIDE and the instant
Veluz, defendant-appellant," a case for unlawful administrative case filed against Atty. Manuel N.
detainer on appeal before said court. Camacho is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

On October 1, 1998, Rudecon filed a motion

before Branch 78 seeking to cite Singson and his
counsel, Atty. Camacho, for contempt for having CANON 10
allegedly violated the rule against forum by Rowneylin Sia
shopping. And the court, in its dispositive portion
found them guilty. On the basis of the above-cited PAGUINTO
order, Rudecon and Tacorda filed the instant (A.C. No. 6723, March 15, 2010)
complaint for disbarment or suspension against
Atty. Camacho. FACTS:
On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was
ISSUE: Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of
Whether or not Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on October
liable for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of the
Professional Responsibility. Board of Directors (the Board), including her and the
General Manager. The notice was signed by respondent.
At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly
RULING: presided by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L.
Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the
Although respondent was held to be guilty then current Board, Gerango, complainants predecessor,
in forum shopping, the court agreed with respondent as Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself
that there was no intention on his part to mislead the Chair, appointed others to replace the removed directors,
court by concealing the pendency of Civil Case No. and appointed respondent as Board Secretary.
Q-98-35444 in Branch 79 when they filed the On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took
Motion for Intervention and Answer in Intervention over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the pump
in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326 in Branch 78. Indeed, houses, water facilities, and operations. On even date,
the first paragraph of the said Answer in respondent sent letter-notices to complainant and the
four removed directors informing them of their removal
Intervention shows that respondent and his client from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and
called the trial courts attention with respect to the advising them to cease and desist from further
pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. Herein discharging the duties of their positions.Complainant
Page 1 of 6
thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative Fernandez was trying to sell HIS Makati property.
Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a complaint for Fernandez has for his basis an alleged deed of donation
annulment of the proceedings taken during the October that Palacio executed in favor of Fernandez. Palacios,
14, 2001 Special General Assembly. with the help of Atty. Villalon, filed a complaint in order
The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution to nullify the deed of donation. Fernandez answered that
of February 21, 2002, declared the questioned general he had an Absolute Deed of Sale in his favor from
assembly null and void for having been conducted in Palacios. Thereafter, Villalon was charged by Palacios
violation of GEMASCOs By-Laws and the Cooperative for violation of rules 10.01, 10.02, 10.03 among others.
Code of the Philippines. The RDs Resolution of He claims that Villalon suppressed and excluded in the
February 21, 2002 was later vacated for lack of complaint the existence of an unregistered but notarized
jurisdiction of CDA. Thus, complainant files a deed of absolute sale. Villalon counters that as counsel
disbarment case against respondent. of Palacios she is under no duty to include the fact that
there existed a deed of sale because only her clients
ISSUE: operative facts and not other evidentiary facts needed to
Whether or not respondent is liable for violation be included in the complaint. The deed of sale was a
of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. matter of defense that Fernandez, as defendant could
raise as a matter of defense.
Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ISSUE:
ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes Did the non-inclusion of the deed of sale in the
utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents complaint amount to a violation of 10.01, 02, 03?
conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A
Courts Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere HELD:
request, nor should it be complied with partially, No. A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all
inadequately, or selectively". Respondents obstinate his dealings, however this duty does not require him to
refusal to comply with the Courts orders "not only advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her
betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also clients opponent. Villalon was not duty bound to build
underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders the case for Fernandez. The cause of action chosen by
which is only too deserving of reproof. Palacios was for the annulment of the deed of donation.
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and Palacios had told her that the deed of sale was void for
processes and respondents deference is underscored by lack of consideration. It was not a necessary fact for his
the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the case. Only the clients operative facts and not the other
lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to evidentiary facts need to be included in the Complaint. It
disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver is correct for the respondent to argue that pointing out
responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute Sale
to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect was a matter of defense which the defendant in said civil
to their processes. case can freely point out to the trial judge through his
own pleadings. It cannot be argued that there was
The Court notes that respondent had previously suppression of evidence on the part of the respondent as
been suspended from the practice of law for six months she is not the only person who had access or possession
for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, of the said Deed of Absolute Sale. It was a document
he having been found to have received an acceptance fee readily available to the general public through the
and misled the client into believing that he had filed a Notarial Office. Moreover, it was a document which was
case for her when he had not. It appears, however, that fully known to herein complainant as he was supposed
respondent has not reformed his ways. A more severe to be a party to the said Deed of Absolute Sale. In other
penalty this time is thus called for. words, a person cannot possibly suppress the existence
of a document which everyone else, especially the
Wherefore, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, opposing party-litigant, knows about.
is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law
for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath, effective CANON 11
immediately. by Allan Kristofer Pormento

CANON 10 (ADM Case No. 7952, November 22, 2006)
by Iran Salvado
FERNANDEZ v. DE RAMOS-VILLALON Ng is one of the respondents in a labor case,
(A.C. No. 7024, February 27, 2009) Alar is the counsel for the complainant in the labor case.
The case was filed when employees of the Ng Company
FACTS: alleged that they did not receive their service incentives
In 2004, Palacios, a lot owner in Makati, sought because the Ng Company refused to pay because a strike
the help of Fernandez to help him in a land grabbing was conducted on company premises hampering
case. Palacios won the case and he allegedly agreed to entrance and exit into the area. It was later found that the
pay Fernandez 2M. In 2005, Palacios bumped into one incentive pay had been paid. When the NLRC dismissed
Mrs. Lirio and to his surprise, he found out that the appeal, Alar filed an MR with a Motion to Inhibit,
Page 2 of 6
where Alar used scandalous, offensive and menacing authority of the court and administration of law into
language to support the complaint. He called the labor disrepute or in some manner impedes the due
arbiter crossed-eyed in making his findings of fact and administration of justice. Indirect contempt is one
that the NLRC commissioner acted with malice in ruling committed out of or not in the presence of the court but
that the labor arbiter decided correctly. He also alleged tends to be little, degrade obstruct or embarrass the court
that NLRC retiring commissioners circumvent the law and justice. Improper conduct tending to directly or
when the money claims involved in the cases are large. indirectly impede obstruct or degrade the administration
Because of this a disbarment case was filed against him of justice is also indirect contempt. A lawyer is first and
saying that he violated canons 8 and 11. Alar argues that foremost an officer of the court and it is his duty to
he did not violate them because: 1) NLRC is not a court maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial
contemplated by the rules; 2) NLRC commissioners are officers. While he is expected to bring forth irregular and
not judges; 3) the complaints in labor cases are bound to questionable practices of those sitting in court it is
be heated and that they are entitled to some anger. He important that this criticism shall be bona fide and shall
counterclaimed that the lawyers of Ng are the ones in not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. His
violation of the CPR by filing multiple suits from the statements bear badges of falsehood because the version
same cause of action and that they deliberately lessened of the witnesses disputes his statements. He maliciously
the number of complainants in the labor case. The made these declarations irresponsibly. The libelous
commission on bar discipline found Alar guilty of attack on the integrity and credibility of Justice Tinga
violating the CPR. degrade the dignity of the court and erode public
confidence in it. He is hereby fined P 3,000.00.
Whether or not Alar violated the CPR.
HELD: by Aristotle Cruz
Yes. The motion he filed contained insults
attacking the NLRC, casting doubt on its moral and GUERRERO v. VILLAMOR
intellectual integrity, implying that the NLRC can be (A.M. No. RTJ-90-483, September 25, 1998)
bought. He used improper and offensive language,
which cannot be justified. Though a lawyers language FACTS:
may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be Carlos and his counsel, Guerrero, charged
dignified and respectful. He deserves not only a warning respondent with gross ignorance of the law and
but also a fine of P 5,0000. The counter-complaint is knowingly rendering an unjust judgment after they lost a
dismissed because there was no position paper submitted civil and a criminal case tried by respondent. They were
to substantiate the claims. also thwarted on appeal. However, in the pleadings
before the CA, they used abusive language in describing
the respondents acts, hence, respondent judge cited
CANON 11 them for direct contempt, which was later set aside by
by Allan Kristofer Pormento the SC.


(G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007) Must the respondent be held liable for violation
of the Code for Professional Ethics?
De La Serna requested that Justice Tinga, the HELD:
ponente in the Fudot case, be inhibited because it was The case was dismissed. The order of direct
alleged that he received 10 million pesos from Chan in contempt may only be considered as an error of
exchange for a favorable decision. De La Serna suggests judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged
that Tinga abandoned the doctrine in Lim v. Jorge to for mere errors of judgment, in the absence of showing
accommodate Chan. He also said that Tinga prioritized of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. Moreover,
the case and that Chan already knew of the outcome of judges cannot be held to account criminally, civilly, or
the case before the decision was promulgated. Chan administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by
related that he approached De La Serna for the purpose them in good faith.
of amicably settling the case, and offered him to be their
retainer in Bohol. He denied having said to De La Serna
that he had already spent so much money for the
Supreme Court. CANON 12
by Reynaldo Dennison Tayag
Whether or not Serna is guilty of indirect PEOPLE v. JARDIN
contempt. (G.R. No. L-33037-42, August 17, 1983)

Yes. Contempt is defined as a disobedience to The criminal prosecutions originated from a
the court by setting up opposition to its authority, justice letter-complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon
and dignity. It is not only a willful disregard or requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary
disobedience of the courts orders but it also brings criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Page 3 of 6
Code against Demetrio Jardin for malversation of public
funds thru falsification of public documents on six
counts. The cases were assigned to Assistant Fiscal CANON 12
Meliton V. Angeles who set them for preliminary by Reynaldo Dennison Tayag
investigation. The accused moved to postpone the
investigation four times but the accused and his counsel GARCIA v. FRANCISCO
failed to appear every time. Inspire of their absence, the (A.C. No. 3923, March 30, 1993)
preliminary investigation was conducted and shortly
afterwards, the six informations were filed against the FACTS:
accused before the Court of First Instance of Quezon In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on
City. The arraignment was set for May 9, 1967. On the October 6, 1992, Concordia B. Garcia seeks the
records it was show that from May 9, 1967, the disbarment of Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco. On March 9,
arraignment was re-set for June 6; then re-set for June 1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her husband Godofredo,
26; then from August 16, the same was re-set for the Dionisio spouses, and Felisa and Magdalena
September 5, all because of the motions for Baetiong leased a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee
postponement filed at the instance of the accused. When for a period of 25 years beginning May 1, 1964. Despite
the arraignment of the accused was called on September repeated verbal and written demands, Lee refused to
5, 1967, counsel for the accused verbally moved for vacate after the expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that
reinvestigation on the ground that the accused was not he had an option to extend the lease for another 5 years
given the opportunity to present his defense during the and the right of pre-emption over the property. In this
preliminary investigation. This was granted by the court disbarment case, the complainant claims that Lees
and the first reinvestigation was set on November 24, counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced various suits
1967. Accused moved to postpone many times, failed before different courts to thwart Garcias right to regain
still to appear. When he finally appeared with his her property and that all these proceedings were decided
counsel, they asked for 15 days to file memorandum. against Lee. The proceedings stemmed from the said
The memorandum was never filed, so the investigating lease contract and involved the same issues and parties,
fiscal filed a manifestation before the court that the thus violating the proscription against forum-shopping.
records of these cases be returned and the trial on the The respondent, in his comment, says that he asserted in
merits of the same be set. The court transferred the case defense of his clients rights only such remedies as were
to new branch of CFI Quezon without acting on authorized by law. That On March 29, 1989, Lee,
manifestation. Arraignment date was set but more through Francisco, filed a complaint against Garcia and
postponements was filed at the instance of accused; the other lessors for specific performance and re-
moved for reinvestigation again. Arraignment finally conveyance with damages. Thus began more filing of
happened on Sept 8, 1970. Accused pleaded NOT complaints and dismissals of cases as follows: On June
GUILTY and asked for trial to be postponed. On 9, 1989, Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
postponed date, accused asked for another The case was dismissed on August 10, 1989. On May
postponement. 29, 1989, Garcia and the other lessors filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer against Lee. On September 5,
ISSUE: 1989, judge Bautista issued a resolution rejecting this
Whether the acts of the accused and his counsel allegation on the ground that the issues before the two
obstruct the administration of justice. courts were separate and different. On October 24, 1989,
Lee, through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and
HELD: prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge
The Supreme Court ruled that the dilatory tactics Bautista, Garcia and the other lessors. On April 6, 1990,
of the defense counsel and the failure of both judge and Lee through Francisco filed a petition for certiorari and
the fiscal to take effective counter measures to obviate prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction with
the delaying acts constitute obstruction of justice. An the Court of Appeals against Judge Vera, Judge Singzon,
attorney as an officer of the court is called upon to assist Garcia and the other lessors. On June 14, 1990,
in the due administration of justice. Like the court itself, Judge Singzon decided the case in favor of complainant
he is an instrument to advance its cause. For this reason, Garcia and the other lessors. Lee did not appeal. Instead,
any act on the part of a lawyer that obstructs perverts or on, June 21, 1990, through Francisco again, he filed a
impedes the administration of justice constitutes petition against Judge Singzon and the other lessors for
misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him. certiorari and annulment of the decision of such case. On
Acts which amount to obstruction in the administration September 27, 1991, Lee, through Francisco, filed a
of justice may take many forms. They include such acts motion to inhibit Judge Singzon and to defer the hearing
as instructing a complaining witness in a criminal action of the motion then finally, Lee, still through Francisco,
not to appear at the scheduled hearing so that the case filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
against the client, the accused, would be dismissed. against Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors in
asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which the the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to set aside and
lawyer knows his client did not commit, advising a client declare the writs of execution in Civil Case No. 1455.
who is detained for a crime to escape from prison This was dismissed on August 4, 1992, and Lee, through
prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to drain Francisco, filed a motion for reconsideration.
the resources of the other party and compel him to
submit out of exhaustion and filing multiple petitions or ISSUE:
complaints for a cause that has been previously rejected Whether Atty. Francisco abuses his right of
in the false expectation of getting favorable action. recourse to the courts.
Page 4 of 6
HELD: The Court finds respondent, Attorney Eugenio
The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer owes M. Millado, guilty of gross negligence in not having
fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of complied with a show cause resolution and of abusing
truth and the administration of justice. The cause of the the right of recourse to the Court by filing multiple
respondents client is obviously without merit. The petitions for the same cause in the false expectation of
respondent was aware of this fact when he willfully getting favorable action from one division as against the
resorted to the gambits summarized above, continuously adverse action of the other division. The Court deems his
seeking relief that was consistently denied, as he should suspension from the practice of law since February,
have expected. By grossly abusing his right of recourse 1975 as sufficient penalty and now lifts his suspension
to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had with the warning that the commission in the future by
been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the respondent of the same or other infractions shall be dealt
obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or with severely.
proceedings as appear to him to be just and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable
under the law. By violating his oath not to delay any CANON 12
man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name by Desserie Marie Guillarte
of an honorable profession and has proved himself
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer VDA. DE BACALING v. LAGUNA & HON.
of the Court. ROVIRA
(G.R. No. L-26694, December 18, 1973)
by Desserie Marie Guillarte FACTS:
Private respondent Hector Laguda is the
CAPT. CABAGUI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS registered owner of a residential land known as lot No.
THIRD DIVISION 3508 situated at La Paz, Iloilo City many years back,
(G.R. No. L-38377, October 15, 1975) petitioner and her late husband, Dr. Ramon Bacaling,
with the acquiescence of private respondent Laguda,
FACTS: constructed a residential house on a portion of said lot
Under its Resolution of November 20, 1974, the fronting Huevana Street, paying a monthly rental of
Court, acting on a third petition for review of a Court of P80.00. Unable to pay the lease rental from July 1959 to
Appeals decision affirming petitioners conviction of the September 1961, 5otaling P2,160.00, an action for
crime of malversation of public funds, as filed on ejectment (Civil Case No. 6823) was filed by private
November 13, 1974 by his attorney, Eugenio M. respondent Laguda against petitioner in her capacity as
Millado, with address at Koronadal, South Cotabato, judicial administratrix of the estate of her late husband,
ordered that said petition be expunged from the records Dr. Bacaling, in the City Court of Iloilo City. The filing
and required Atty. Eugenio Millado to show cause of said case spawned various court suits. Petitioner on
within ten (10) days from notice hereof why disciplinary July 23, 1962, filed certiorari proceedings in this Court
action should not be taken against him for trifling with (G.R. No. L-20061) but was dismissed for lack of merit
the Court by filing this third petition despite previous on August 3, 1962. Petitioner on November 12, 1962,
resolutions of this Court. In its previous Resolution of filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition
May 8, 1974 referring to the first two petitions filed by for certiorari with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No.
respondent Millado on behalf of the same petitioner, the 6162) but the same was dismissed on December 1, 1962.
Court had dismissed the secondpetition (filed on March Unsuccessful in her motion for reconsideration,
18, 1974) by respondent Millado in the guise of a new petitioner went to the Court of Appeals by way of
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction but certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 31882-R) but her petition was
which merely raised again the same questions in his first dismissed by that Court on March 7, 1967.
petition (filed on January 9, 1974) seeking to set aside
petitioners conviction for malversation of public funds, ISSUE:
by decision of the court of first instance of Misamis Whether or not the acts of the petitioner as
Oriental dated June 20, 1963 as affirmed with judicial administratrix prior to her discharge or removal
modification by the Court of Appeals decision dated are valid and binding upon her successor.
June 8, 1973, for alleged lack of jurisdiction and praying
for reversal of the conviction or for a reduction of his HELD:
criminal liability by finding appellant-petitioner guilty of Such a view is not tenable. Under Section 3,
technical malversation only for the amount of P1,161.65. Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, petitioners lawful acts
Said first petition had been denied on January 15, 1974 before the revocation of her letters of administration or
by virtue of the petition having been filed late by 4 before her removal shall have the same validity as if
months and 25 days beyond the last date for filing which there was no such revocation or removal. It is
fell due since August 15, 1973. elementary that the effect of revocation of letters
testamentary or of administration is to terminate the
ISSUE: authority of the executor or administrator, but the acts of
Whether or not Respondent Millado is guilty of the executor or administrator, done in good faith prior to
violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional the revocation of the letters, will be protected, and a
Responsibility. similar protection will be extended to rights acquired
under a previous grant of administration. The petitioner
Page 5 of 6
is not entitled to the writ of certiorari. In the case at bar,
there is absolutely no showing that the respondent courts FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.
acted so arbitrarily, despotically or capriciously as (A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009)
to amount to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the
questioned orders. Grave abuse of discretion which is FACTS:
a ground for certiorari means such capricious and Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the
arbitrary exercise of judgment as is equivalent, in the business of meat processing and manufacture of canned
eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction. Even mere goods of CDO filed an administrative complaint
abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for violation of the
issuance of a writ of certiorari. For that purpose the code of professional responsibility. The case at hand
abuse of discretion must be grave and patent, and it must involved a certain Alberto Cordero who purportedly
be shown that it was exercised arbitrarily or despotically, found a colony of worms inside the can of liver spread
which is not the case made out by the present petition. by CDO and Foodsphere that he bought from the
grocery. The Cordero family sued the company for
P150,000 for damages, but the companies did not agree
CANON 13 to the demands. The Corderos thereafter threatened to
by Maxi Fernandez resort to the media, if their demands are not met.
Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel of the
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO, Corderos, was involved in various media productions
FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR such as being a writer/columnist of tabloids including
(ADM. CASE No. 7006, October 09, 2007) Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and
HATAW!, and a host of a television program
The administrative case has its roots from the of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN
case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard before the aired over DZBB. Atty. Mauricio, in many cases utilized
sala of Judge Jose Manuel Tan, Regional trial court of these media outlets to place the said company in a bad
Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis Bucalon, was found to be light by declaring to the masses the liver spread of
guilty of homicide and not murder with the evidence as worms; even after his receipt of the Order addressed to
basis. Counsel of the defense thereafter filed a motion to him to desist from further publishing, televising and/or
fix that amount of bail bond, with which Senior state broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the
prosecutor and deputized prosecutor of the case Atty. instant case more specifically the imputation of vices
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo contests stating that murder is non- and/or defects on plaintiff and its products. Even after
bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion for the parties have performed an agreement, signed by the
reconsideration which was consequently denied. Hence, Corderos and Atty.Mauricio himself resulting in the
instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies, dismissal of the Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio still
respondent caused the publication of an article in the inexplicably launched a media offensive to the
August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily. companies.
Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to the media, after he was
ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00 this ISSUE:
time at Radio Station DXKS. He attacked once again Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated the
Judge Tan and his disposition on the proceedings of Code of Professional Responsibility.
People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza.
ISSUE: Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the professional responsibility. His recourse to the Media,
Code of professional conduct. even after being told to desist from such was a clear
violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon 13, A lawyer shall not
HELD: make public statements in the media regarding a pending
Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
code of professional conduct Canon 13, Rule 13.02 party. His action has put not only the company
which states that a lawyer shall not make public Foodsphere and CDO in a bad light, but has also
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending degraded the dignity and authority of the legal system.
to arouse public opinion for or against a party. That Besides the above, he has also violated Canon 1.01 by
instead of resorting to the available judicial remedies engaging in deceitful conduct taking advantage of the
before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity complaint against CDO to advance his own interests,
and authority of the court and the presiding judge, as and Canon 8, when he used abusive and offensive
well as promoted distrust in the administration of justice language in his dealings.
when he resorted to media and declared his complaints
there. Atty. Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of
Canon 11, when he disrespected the courts and the
judicial officers and Rule 11.05 when he did not submit
grievances against a judge to proper authorities only.

by Maxi Fernandez
Page 6 of 6