Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

BUGARING v.

ESPAÑOL • The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he did
Canon 8 – Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards Professional Colleagues | not in fact instruct his assistant to take photos and added that the reason
January 19, 2001 | De Leon, Jr. they had with them a camera was because they had just come from a
function
Nature of Case: Review on certiorari • Counsel sent out his assistant after the Court took exception to the fact
Petitioner: Rexie Efren Bugaring that although proceedings are open to the public and it being a court of
Respondent: Hon. Dolores S. Español record, the situation at hand is an abuse of discretion of the court since
SUMMARY: During a hearing for the annulment of Sale and Certificates of the court was not asked for permission to do so.
Title in the case of Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc. v. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz • When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion manifested
Alvaran, et. al., petitioner (here-in counsel for Alvarans), together with his that he needed the services of counsel and right then and there appointed
assistant operating a video camera and taking pictures of the proceedings, Atty. Barzaga to represent him, the case was allowed to be called again
manifested that he was ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to • On second call, Atty. Bugaring started to insist that he be allowed to
his Motion to cite in contempt of court the Deputy Register of Deeds of mark and present his documentary evidence in spite of the fact that Atty.
Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion. Despite the court asking petitioner to allow Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written
the defendant’s counsel to finish his manifestation and respect the court’s pleading for his client.
decision to give defendant counsel time to write their comment, petitioner • The court declared him out of order. Atty. Bugaring served 3 days and
kept insisting that he be allowed to mark his evidence and even accused the paid a fine of P3,000 as instructed by the court.
court of being antagonistic and biased and threatening to file an inhibition • After serving his sentence and paying the fine, he filed for a declaration
to the Hon. Court. of said order to be null and void. He argued that he was never in
contempt of court given that 1) he always addressed it with respect by
The court cited petitioner in direct contempt and ordered for him to be put using the phrase “your Honour please” and 2) he was merely carried
in jail for three days and fined P3,000. Petitioner served his sentence but away by his emotions in espousing the case of his client.
afterwards filed for a declaration of such order as null and void as it had no
• CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but ordered the excess P1,000 to be
legal basis; he also asked for a reimbursement of the fine. CA decision to
returned.
uphold RTC judgment was affirmed but P1000 was asked to be returned to
petitioner as it was in excess of the ceiling of P2000 under Supreme Court
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
Admin. Circ. No. 22-95.
1. WON RTC erred in citing petitioner in direct contempt of court – NO
a. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and
DOCTRINE: The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and
is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings
is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the
and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of
enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and
the court, and consequently, to the due administration of
consequently, to the due administration of justice. Direct contempt is
justice.
committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge, and can be punished
b. As regards court’s legal basis for citing contempt of court, and in
summarily without hearing.
light of Atty. Bugaring defense of being polite and using the
phrase “your Honour please” during the proceedings, the court
FACTS: ruled that his deference to the court in consistently addressing
(Refer to pages 698-699 of the original case as the facts are summarized clearly and written in order
therein) respondent judge as “your Honour please” is belied by his
• During the hearing of the case, plaintiffs and counsel were present behaviour therein:
together with one operating a video camera who was taking photos of i. Veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the
the proceedings of the case while counsel, Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring, trial court (in violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11)
was making manifestation to the effect that he was ready to mark his ii. The hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent
documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in contempt of Judge was partial in favour of the other party (in
court) the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite – Diosdado Concepcion violation of Rule 11.04, Canon 11)

  1  
iii. Behaving without due regard to the trial court’s order to
maintain order in the proceedings (in disregard of Canon
1)
iv. Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow
counsel who at the time was making representation in
behalf of the other party, was rudely interrupted by the
petitioner and was not allowed to further a word in
edgewise (in violation of Canon 8 and Canon 22)
v. Refusal of petitioner to allow the Registrar of Deeds of
the Province of Cavite, through counsel, to exercise his
right to be heard (in violation of Section 1, Article III,
1987 Constitution and Canon 18, and Canon 12)

c. Regarding counsel’s argument of being carried away in an effort


to espouse the case of his client, the CA stated that: “A lawyer
should not be carried away in espousing his client’s cause – he
should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bound to exert
every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice”.

d. The CA however directed the RTC to return P1,000 to Atty.


Bugaring as it exceeded the ceiling set by SC Admin. Circ. No.
22-95 of P2,000.

RULING: The assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. The RTC is ordered to


RETURN to petitioner, Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000 out of the original
fine of P3,000.

  2  

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi