B.M. No.
850 (Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal information would subject the counsel to appropriate
Education for Active Members of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines). —
The COURT RESOLVED to REQUIRE all members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines to file a written entry of
appearance indicating their MCLE exemption or
compliance number for the current or immediately
preceding compliance period and date of issuance
thereof before appearing as counsel or engaging in oral
argument in open court or before a Quasi-Judicial body.
However, counsels who affixed their signatures in their
pleadings and indicated their MCLE exemption or
compliance number in their pleadings need not file a
separate entry of appearance. Henceforth, all counsels,
including partners of law firms whose names appear in
the said pleadings, shall also indicate their MCLE
exemption or compliance number.
Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to
Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the
Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate
of Exemption. –
The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2,
2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,
Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar
Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of
the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement
program. Court further Resolved, upon the
recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education
and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the
bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or
quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of
their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately
preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the
case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
records.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 79-2014
(a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the
phrase “Failure to disclose the required information
would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records” and
replacing it with “Failure to disclose the required
The OBC also recommended that respondent be
penalty and disciplinary action”;
(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of
current MCLE compliance/exemption number in the
pleadings:
(i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the
first offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense and
P4,000.00 for the
third offense;
(ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a
delinquent member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule
13 of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and
regulations;
(iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from
the case and the client/s shall be allowed to secure the
services of a
new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the
return of fees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.
ARNADO VS ADAZA
Atty. Samuel Arnado called the attention of the Court to
the practice of Atty. Homobono Adaza (respondent) of
indicating “MCLE application for exemption under
process” in his pleadings filed in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 201,
and “MCLE Application for Exemption for
Reconsideration” in a pleading filed in 2012. When he
inquired from the MCLE office, he learned that
respondent did not comply with the requirements of Bar
Matter No. 850 for the First (2001-2004), Second (2004-
2007), and Third (2007-2010) Compliance Periods. When
the case was referred to the MCLE Committee for
evaluation, report and recommendation, the Committee
came out with its findings: respondent applied for
exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods,
on the ground of “expertise in law”. The MCLE Governing
Board denied the request on January 14, 2009. He also
did not apply for exemption nor complied with the Third
Compliance Period. The Court then required the
respondent to file his comment. In his comment, he
alleged that he did not receive a copy of the letter of the
complainant, who belongs to the Romualdo and Arnaldo
Law Office, the law office of his political opponent, the
Romualdo family. He then enumerated his achievements
as a lawyer and claimed that he had been practicing law
for about 50 years. His achievements ranged from
appearing as counsels to several poetical personalities,
writing books, becoming a public servant, and even
refusing to be appointed a Supreme Court justice.
directed to comply with the requirements set forth by the
MCLE Governing Board.”
The Issue: Whether or not Atty. Adaza should be held
administratively liable for failure to comply with MCLE
requirements.
The Ruling: Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP
to undergo continuing legal education “to ensure that
throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
enhance the standards of the practice of law.”⁠1
Clearly, respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities
by failing to comply with Bar Matter No. 850. His
application for exemption for the First and Second
Compliance Periods was filed after the compliance
periods had ended. He did not follow-up the status of his
application for exemption. He furnished the Court with his
letter dated 7 February 2012⁠3 to the MCLE Office asking
the office to act on his application for exemption but
alleged that his secretary failed to send it to the MCLE
Office.⁠4 He did not comply with the Fourth Compliance
Period.
A member failing to comply with the continuing
legal education requirement will receive a Non-
Compliance Notice stating his specific deficiency and will
be given sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notification
to explain the deficiency or otherwise show compliance
with the requirements. Such notice shall be written in
capital letters as follows: The Member may use the 60-day
period to complete his compliance with the MCLE
requirement. A member who is in non-compliance at the
end of the compliance period shall pay a non-
compliance fee of PI,000.00 and shall be listed as a
delinquent member of the IBP by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE
Committee, in which case Rule 13 9-A of the Rules of
Court shall apply. Respondent’s failure to comply with the
MCLE requirements and disregard of the directives of the
MCLE Office warrant his declaration as a delinquent
member of the IBP. While the MCLE Implementing
Regulations state that the MCLE Committee should
recommend to the IBP Board of Governors the listing of a
lawyer as a delinquent member, there is nothing that
prevents the Court from using its administrative power
and supervision to discipline erring lawyers and from
directing the IBP Board of Governors o declare such
lawyers as delinquent members of the IBP.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
(1) REMIND the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
Office to promptly act on matters that require its
immediate attention, such as but not limited to
applications for exemptions, and to communicate its
action to the interested parties within a reasonable
period;
(2) DENY the prayer of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza to be
exempted from MCLE compliance as the matter had
already been denied with finality by the MCLE Governing
Board on 28 November 2013;
(3) DECLARE Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a delinquent
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and SUSPEND him from the practice of law for SIX
MONTHS, or until he has fully complied with the MCLE
requirements for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth
Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully
paid the required non-compliance and reinstatement
fees.
Noble vs Ailes-None
RAMOS V. IMBANG
FACTS: In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the
assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil
and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and
Elenita Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as
attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000
only.
The complainant tried to attend the scheduled
hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly,
respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom
and always told her to wait outside. He would then come
out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had
been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six
times and for each “appearance” in court, respondent
charged her P350.
After six consecutive postponements, the
complainant became suspicious. She personally inquired
about the status of her cases. She was shocked to learn
that respondent never filed any case against the
Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the
Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
HELD: Attorney Imbang is disbarred and his name stricken
from the roll of attorneys. Lawyers are expected to
conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More
specifically, lawyers in government service are expected
to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are
subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of
the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity
to public service. Government employees are expected
to devote themselves completely to public service. For
this reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited.
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from
the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992
while he was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance
of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship. Respondent's admission that he accepted
money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed
the presence of an attorney-client relationship between
him and the complainant.
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have
accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this
was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent
violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees
other than his salary.
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the
integrity and good moral character required of all
lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers
in public office are expected not only to refrain from any
act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and
confidence of the citizenry in government but also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and
observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A
government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is
burdened with a high degree of social responsibility,
higher than his brethren in private practice.
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK)
encountered financial difficulties. Later on, Central Bank
issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent.
Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed
a petition with the then Court of First Instance praying for
the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANK's
liquidation.
After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG
for the purpose of recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG,
on July 17, 1987, filed with the Sandiganbayan a
complaint for 'reversion, reconveyance, restitution,
accounting and damages against respondents Tan, et al.
so PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on
properties allegedly acquired by the above-named
persons by taking advantage of their close relationship
and influence with former President Marcos. These
respondents were represented by Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent
Mendoza as counsel for respondents. The motions
alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor
General and counsel to Central Bank, 'actively
intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was
subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and
became Allied Banking Corporation.
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits
former government lawyers from accepting
'engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza?
HELD NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of
respondent Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the
case at bar is 'advising the Central Bank, on how to
proceed with the said bank's liquidation and even filing
the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the
Court should resolve whether his act of advising the
Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is included within the concept of 'matter’
under Rule 6.03.
The 'matter’ where he got himself involved was in
informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law
to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the
necessary petition. The subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No.
107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is
different from the subject 'matter in Civil Case No. 0096
which is about the sequestration of the shares of
respondents Tan, et al.
The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the
dissolution and liquidation of banks. It goes without saying
that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his
alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc.
No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from
the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza
in the liquidation case is not significant and substantial.
We note that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance
of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal
role of the court in this type of proceedings is to assist the
Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against
the GENBANK.
Also, The disqualification of respondent Mendoza
has long been a dead issue. For a fact, the recycled
motion for disqualification in the case at bar was filed
more than four years after the filing of the petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Supreme
Court which were subsequently remanded to the
Sandiganbayan. At the very least, the circumstances
under which the motion to disqualify in the case at bar
were refiled put petitioner's motive as highly suspect.
It is also submitted that the Court should apply
Rule 6.03 in all its strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers
who 'switch sides. It is claimed that 'switching sides' carries
the danger that former government employee may
compromise confidential official information in the
process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the
case at bar. As afore-discussed, the act of respondent
Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure
how to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the
subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the
sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in
Allied Bank. There is no switching sides for there were no
sides.
Huyssen vs. Gutierrez
FACTS Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation officer, received US$20,000
from complainant Huyssen. Accused of falsely
representing that it was needed in complainant’s
application for visa and failing to return the same,
respondent denied misappropriating the said amount,
claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who
assisted complainant and children in their application for
visa. He failed however to substantiate such denial.
Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the money could
not immediately be returned to the complainant, and
promised her several times that he would repay her out
of his personal funds. He even issued personal post-dated
checks on this, but which later bounced.
ISSUE Whether or not respondent’s conduct violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility and merits the penalty
of disbarment?
RULING Yes, the respondent should be disbarred.
The defense of denial proferred by respondent is not
convincing. It is settled that denial, which is inherently a
weak defense, to be believed must be buttressed by a
strong evidence of non-culpability. The evidence,
respondent’s letters to the complainant, shows that he
made it appear that the US$20,000 was officially
deposited with the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation. If this is true, how come only Petty Cash
Vouchers were issued by respondent to complainant to
prove his receipt of the said sum and official receipts
therefore were never issued by the said Bureau? Also, why
would respondent issue his personal checks to cover the
return of the money to complainant if said amount was
really officially deposited with the Bureau of Immigration?
All these actions of respondent point to the inescapable
conclusion that respondent received the money from
complainant and appropriated the same for his personal
use.
Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official task have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public
office.
Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the
fraud by taking advantage of his position with the Board
of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has
caused damage to the reputation and integrity of said
office. It is submitted that respondent has violated Rule
6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which reads:
"A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties."
Also, the act of issuing a bouncing check shows moral
turpitude. Respondent's acts are more despicable, for not
only did he misappropriate the money of complainant;
worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts with the
letterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up his
misdeeds.
Time and again, we have declared that the practice of
law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed
only upon those who are competent intellectually,
academically and morally.
A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in
his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
More importantly, possession of good moral character
must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of
the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is
a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent
miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high
standards of the legal profession. Section 27 Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may
be disbarred or suspended for, among other acts, gross
misconduct in office.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law and ordered to return the amount he
received from the complainant with legal interest from his
receipt of the money until payment. The case shall be
referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for criminal
prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Acts and to the Department of Justice for
appropriate administrative action.
QUE vs REVILLA
Facts The respondent also committed forum – shopping
by filing the subject cases in order to obstruct, impede,
and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his
own personal gain and to defeat the right of the
complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and
RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case.
RULING The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is
also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned
and defamed the good name and reputation of the late
Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico) who is the previous
counsel of the respondent’s clients.
Atty. Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the
presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the
motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case
where the respondent asserted the falsehood.
The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to
cover up his lack of preparation. Thus, the respondent
also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in
supporting the above falsehood. Under the
circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the
respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond the
legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in
defending the interests of his client. The respondent
violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to
“observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.”
The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04,
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as
well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are
directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the
same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court
processes; they tend to degrade the administration of
justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and
add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets
of the courts.
The respondent continually argued and challenged the
court for lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC even
knowing – fully well that the competent courts have
jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
Yes. The respondent committed violations in the code of
Professional Responsility and the Rules of Court. The
respondent’s also deliberate, fraudulent and
unauthorized appeared in court in the petition for
annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are
already deceased. Likewise, the respondent violated his
duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer “never to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or
false statement of fact or law”.
Furthermore, the respondent also repeatedly attacked
the complainant’s and his siblings’ titles over the property
subject of the unlawful detainer case. The respondent
willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition
for annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the
Philippines without being authorized to do so. Atty. Revilla
was accused of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil
Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever
given to him. The respondent answered the complaint
and mostly denied all the allegations.
Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the
imputed unethical infractions and professional
misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should
carry.
The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized
appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not
represent a litigant without authority from the latter or
from the latter’s representative or, in the absence thereof,
without leave of court.
Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of
Professional Responsibility, and is found liable for
professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s
Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules
12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21
and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we
modify the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that the
respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of
law.
In RE: ALMACEN
FACTS: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to
Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” to the Supreme
Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a
tribunal “peopled by people who are calloused to our
pleas for justice…”. He also expressed strong words as
against the judiciary like “justice… is not only blind, but
also deaf and dumb.” . The petition rooted from the case
he lost due to the absence of time and place in his
motion in the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the
Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a petition
for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed
thru a minute resolution. With the disappointments, he
thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this
petition to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he
may obtain the title again as soon as he regained
confidence in the justice system.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given
disciplinary actions for his acts
. officers and [to] insist on similar conduct by others" and
HELD: YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.
RATIO:It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that
there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen himself
because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his
accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth and
alleged injustices,so as not to condemn the sinners but
the sin, it has already caused enough damage and
disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui
generis in its nature, a number of foreign and local
jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as
benchmarks and references. Between disbarment and
suspension, the latter was imposed. Indefinite suspension
may only be lifted until further orders, after Atty. Almacen
may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the
practice of law.
Wicker vs. Arcangel
FACTS: It appears that on Nov 18, 1993, Wicker's counsel,
Atty. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the inhibition of the
respondent Judge Arcangel from the case. Respondent
judge found offense in the allegations on the motion for
inhibition filed by complainants, and in an order, held
them guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to
suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of
P100.00. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
which respondent judge denied for lack of merit in his
order of Dec 17, 1993.
HELD: The power to punish for contempt is to be
exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive
principle. Only occasionally should it be invoked to
preserve that respect without which the administration of
justice will fail. Consistent with the foregoing principles
and based on the abovementioned facts, the Court
sustains Judge Arcangel's finding that petitioners are
guilty of contempt. Atty. Rayos, however, cannot evade
responsibility for the allegations in question. As a lawyer,
he is not just an instrument of his client. His client came to
him for professional assistance in the representation of a
cause, and while he owed him whole-souled devotion,
there were bounds set by his responsibility as a lawyer
which he could not overstep. Based on Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as
much responsibility for the contemptuous allegations in
the motion for inhibition as his client. Atty. Rayos' duty to
the courts is not secondary to that of his client. The Code
of Professional Responsibility enjoins him to "observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
"not [to] attribute to a Judge motives not supported by
the record or have materiality to the case.
In RE: Letter of UP Faculty
Statement of UP Professors. While the statement was
meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the
allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they
treated such allegation not only as an established fact,
but a truth. They expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del
Castillo’s explanation on how he cited the primary
sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a
contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the articles
supposedly plagiarized. The statement bore certain
remarks which raise concern for the Court. The first
paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as a reprehensible act of
dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of
the land. The authors also not only assumed that Justice
Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they went further by
directly accusing the Court of perpetrating extraordinary
injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort women
in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. They further attempt to
educate this Court on how to go about the review of the
case. The insult to the members of the Court was
aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the
resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of
“polluted sources,” the Court’s alleged indifference to
the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming
lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the
most basic values of decency and respect.
The publication of a statement by the faculty of the UP
College of Law regarding the allegations of plagiarism
and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was totally
unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced
vigilance. Of public knowledge is the ongoing
investigation precisely to determine the truth of such
allegations. More importantly, the motion for
reconsideration of the decision alleged to contain
plagiarized materials is still pending before the Court. We
made it clear in the case of In re Kelly that any
publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the
jury, the parties, the officers of the court, the counsel with
reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision
of the controversy, is contempt of court and is
punishable.
The UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite
resentment against a resolution that would not reverse
the Vinuya decision. This runs contrary to their obligation
as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first
to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which
they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken
as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice.Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty
entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of
the University of the Philippines College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the
Supreme Court
Judge Rene B. Baculi, Complainant, vs. Atty. Melchor A.
Battung,
Facts: Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City, filed a
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Battung. He
claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the
motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the
respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge
Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead,
the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When
warned that he would be cited for direct contempt, the
respondent shouted, “Then cite me!”Judge Baculi cited
him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00.
The respondent then left. While other cases were being
heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and
shouted, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I
am not afraid of you!” Judge Baculi ocited him for direct
contempt of court for the second time.
After his hearings, respondent again shouted in a
threatening tone, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance
against you! I am not afraid of you!” He kept on shouting,
“I am not afraid of you!” and challenged the judge to a
fight. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the building.
Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left
the courtroom, Atty. Battung continued shouting and
punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.
Issue: Did Atty. Battung violate Cannons 11 and 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling: IBP Commissioner found that the respondent
failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that requires a lawyer to observe and
maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers. The
respondent also violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 that
provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
courts. The respondent’s argument that Judge Baculi
provoked him to shout should not be given due
consideration since the respondent should not have
shouted at the presiding judge; by doing so, he created
the impression that disrespect of a judge could be
tolerated. De la Rama recommended that the
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
(6) months.
The Supreme Court held that litigants and counsels,
particularly the latter because of their position and
avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly
ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court
that he represents.
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom
completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and
position in our justice system. When the respondent
publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi
that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law
against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a
manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge
Baculi’s competence and in his ability to decide cases.
Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be
handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the
Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer
cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light
and bring the justice system into disrepute.
Atty. Battung was ordered suspended from the practice
of law for one (1) year with a warning that a repetition of
a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Cervantes vs. Sabio [A.C. No. 7828 August 11, 2008]
Facts: Respondent filed motions for inhibition on
complainant judge on the ground that EDC (a party to
the case handled by Atty. Sabio) gave complainant a
house and lot putting into serious doubt his impartiality,
independence and integrity. The motions were denied.
Later on in his affidavit of complaint, Atty. Sabio
submitted an affidavit stating certain instances pointing
out irregularities with the handling of his case under Judge
Cervantes. The complaint was dismissed.
A complaint for disbarment was later filed by Judge
Cervantes against Sabio alleging that (1) the complaint
for bribery filed by the latter against the former were
unsubstantiated and motivated by plain unfounded
suspicion, and, (2) such complaints were filed after the
effectivity of his optional retirement. The complaint by
Judge Cervantes was referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty under the
Code of Professional Responsibility for filing a malicious,
false and untruthful complaint.
Held: YES. The IBP established that by filing the groundless
bribery charge against complainant, respondent
violated the proscription of the Code of Professional
Responsibility against "wittingly or willingly promoting or
suing any groundless suit" including baseless
administrative complaints against judges and other court
officers and employees. The Court found the action
taken by the IBP Board of Governors well taken.
Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or
employee, or a lawyer, is to be disciplined, the evidence
against him should be substantial, competent and
derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations,
conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay.
No doubt, it is the Court's duty to investigate the truth
behind charges against judges and lawyers. But it is also
its duty to shield them from unfounded suits which are
intended to, among other things, harass them.
Maceda vs. Vasquez (G.R. No. 102781)
Facts: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a
complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against
petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda.
Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda has
falsified his certificate of service by certifying that all civil
and criminal cases which have been submitted for
decision for a period of 90 days have been determined
and decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in truth
and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no decision
had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that
have been submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera
alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of
service for 17 months.
Issue: Whether or not the investigation made by the
Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SC’s
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts
Held: A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct
and under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and
criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal
Code for his felonious act.
In the absence of any administrative action taken against
him by the Court with regard to his certificates of service,
the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman
encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the
SC administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to
the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this
power, it is only the SC that can oversee the judges’ and
court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the
proper administrative action against them if they commit
any violation thereof. No other branch of government
may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other
court employee arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and
refer the same to the SC for determination whether said
judge or court employee had acted within the scope of
their administrative duties.
ANDAMO VS LARIDA
Issue: Filing of a Baseless Complaint Facts: Herein
petitioner, Atty. Emmanuel Andamo, counsel for the
Cavite Rural Banking Corporation (CRBC), filed this
administrative complaint against the respondents, Hon.
Judge Edwin Larida, Clerk of Court Stanlee Calma and
Legal Researcher Diana Ruiz with gross ignorance of law.
Petitions for the issuance of Writs of Possession and
Certificates of Sale in favor of petitioner’s client were filed
before the RTC of Tagaytay city. At that time, respondent
Hon. Judge Edwin Larida, was the attendant judge of
said court together with respondents Clerk of Court and
Legal Researcher. Respondent judge denied the petitions
for the said certificates and writs on the ground that it has
not observed the required elements for the said
application. The respondents Clerk of Court and Legal
Researcher denied the complainant’s petition for
extrajudicial; foreclosure in the following grounds:
(1) non-payment of filing fees;
(2) non-assignment of docket numbers;
(3) absence of proof of service to the sheriff and to the
parties; etc.
Held: Complainant's charge of gross ignorance of the
law against respondents remains unfounded and
unsubstantiated. The evidence which complainant
submitted, instead of helping his cause, showed that it
was he who was stubbornly remiss in his duties to his client
and to the court, as well. The evidence likewise showed
that contrary to complainant's accusation, respondents
in fact strictly complied with applicable laws, rules, and
jurisprudence pertaining to issuance of writs of possession
or allowance of extrajudicial foreclosure. It is worth
noting, too, that there were no pending motions for
reconsideration filed or other incidents initiated by
complainant in the subject cases to warrant their entry in
the court calendar. As a matter of fact, complainant
does not deny that the assailed Order dated March 17,
2004 had long attained finality. For Atty. Calma and LR
Ruiz to put them back in the court calendar, for no
cogent reason at all, is obviously improper. At any rate,
the filing of this administrative complainant is not the
proper remedy for complainant. Complainant should
have sought relief from higher courts. The filing of an
administrative case against the judge is not an alternative
to the other judicial remedies provided by law; neither is
it complementary or supplementary to such actions.
Clearly, this is a frivolous and baseless complaint. The
respondents cannot be held liable for judiciously
performing their sworn duty to observe and follow court
proceedings as provided by the Rules. Complainant
apparently filed this complaint primarily to divert the
attention of his client from his shortcomings as its counsel,
if not to simply harass the respondents. A lawyer who files
an unfounded complaint must be sanctioned because,
as an officer of the court, he does not discharge his duty
by filing frivolous petitions that only add to the workload
of the judiciary. Such filing of baseless complaints is
contemptuous of the courts. Complainant was ordered
to show cause why he should not be subjected to
disciplinary action for filing a frivolous and baseless
complaint.
CANON 12
FIL-GARCIA, INC. V. HERNANDEZ
FACTS: Filomeno Garcia, president of Fil-Garcia Inc., after
losing his case in the CA for a sum of money, secured the
serviced of Atty. Fernando Hernandez, who received the
denied resolution for Garcia as counsel, and was given 15
days to appeal.
Instead of filing the appeal, Hernandez filed for a
Motion for Extension the day before the expiration of the
period to file the appeal,, alleging that he was counsel
for a mayoralty candidate and a senatorial candidate,
and he was also needed in the canvassing of votes, so
the urgency of the nature of his work will not allow him the
limited time to file the appeal, thus asked for 30 days
extension.
30 days later, Hernandez again filed his 2nd
Motion for Extension, this time, because he fell ill, and his
physical state will not allow him to file the appeal on time,
thus asking for 20 days extension.
20 days later, the 3rd Motion for Extension was
filed, with the grand excuse that because he fell ill the last
time, his work load piled up, thus requiring him more time
to conclude on the work load he missed when he was ill,
plus the appeal, hence the request for 10 days extension,
to which 10 days later, he did actually file the appeal.
(Finally!)
Of course, afterwards, Hernandez learned that
all three Motions for Extensions were denied by the court,
and to his dismay, received a copy of the resolution
denying the appeal all together. However, instead of
informing his client, Fil-Garcia, he decides to forward the
resolution of denial of the appeal some 7 months later,
which greatly angered his client, pushing him to file for his
disbarment.
ISSUE: Is Hernandez liable for malpractice, gross
misconduct, tantamount to violation of his oath as a
lawyer, which warrant his disbarment?
HELD: Yes, to gross negligence, but no to disbarment.
The filing of 3 motions for extension on the
careless assumption that each motion will be granted by
the Court, and without taking care of informing himself of
the Court's action thereon, constitutes inexcusable
negligence. Moreover, respondent knowingly referred to
Rule 65 in the petition he belatedly filed as an
afterthought in his desperate attempt to salvage the
appeal.
Rule 12.04 enjoins a lawyer not to "unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of judgment or misuse court
proceedings." While pressure of work or some other
unavoidable reasons may constrain a lawyer to file a
motion for extension of time to file pleadings, he should
not presume that his motion for extension of time will be
granted. Motions for extension of time to file a pleading
are not granted as a matter of course but lie in the sound
discretion of the court. It is thus incumbent on any movant
for extension to exercise due diligence to inform himself
as soon as possible of the Court's action on his motion, by
timely inquiry from the Clerk of Court. Should he neglect
to do so, he runs the risk of time running out on him, for
which he will have nobody but himself to blame.
A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue
as counsel should inform the client and ask that he be
allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client
to engage the services of another counsel who can study
the situation and work out a solution.
To make matters worse, it took respondent 7
months from the time he received a copy of the Court's
resolution to inform complainant of the same.
He was merely suspended for 6 months,
considering that respondent humbly admitted his fault in
not immediately informing complainant of the status of
the case.
Nunez v Ricafort (382 SCRA 381)
Facts: An administrative complaint was by Soledad
Nuñez, a septuagenarian represented by her attorney-in-
fact Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the disbarment of Atty.
Romulo Ricafort on the ground of grave misconduct.
Sometime in October 1982, Soledad authorized Atty.
Ricafort to sell her two parcels of land located in Legazpi
City for P40,000. She agreed to the lawyer 10% of the price
as commission. Atty. Ricafort succeeded in selling the lots,
but despite Soledad’s repeated demands, he did not
turn over the proceeds of the sale. This forced Soledad to
file an action for a sum of money before the RTC, Quezon
City.
The court rendered its decision ordering the Atty. to pay
Soledad the sum of P16,000 as principal obligation, with
at the legal rate from the date of the commencement of
the action.
An appeal to the CA was made. However, the appeal
was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee
within the reglementary period despite notice.
Soledad filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of
execution. But it appears that only a partial satisfaction of
the P16,000 judgment was made, leaving P13,800
unsatisfied. In payment for the latter, Atty. issued four
postdated checks but was dishonored because the
account against which they were drawn was closed.
Hence, Soledad was forced to file four criminal
complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the MTC,
Quezon City.
In a joint affidavit, Atty. Ricafort admitted having drawn
and issued said four postdated checks in favor of
Soledad. Allegedly believing in good faith that said
checks had already been encashed by Soledad, he
subsequently closed his checking account in China
Banking Corporation, Legazpi City, from which said four
checks were drawn. He was not notified that the checks
were dishonored. Had he been notified, he would have
made the necessary arrangements with the bank.
The court required Atty. to comment on the complaint.
But he never did despite the favorable action on his three
motions for extension of time to file the comment. His
failure to do so compelled Soledad to file a motion to cite
Atty. in contempt on the ground that his strategy to file
piecemeal motions for extension of time to submit the
comment “smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is
unworthy of a member of the bar and a law dean.”
The IBP findings show that the Atty. had no intention to
“honor” the money judgment against him. It
recommended that Atty. be declared “guilty of
misconduct in his dealings with complainant” and be
suspended from the practice of law for at least one year
and pay the amount of the checks issued to the
complainant.
Issue:Whether or not Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of
grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant.
Held:YES. There is a blatant violation of Rule 1:01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and
immoral or deceitful conduct.
By violating Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. diminished public
confidence in the law and the lawyers. Instead of
promoting such confidence and respect, he miserably
failed to live up to the standards of the legal profession.
His act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ
of execution for money judgment rendered by the trial
court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of justice.
His failure to make good the checks despite demands
and the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed
his continued defiance of judicial processes, which he, as
an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to
uphold.
To further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts
and judicial processes, he even had the temerity of
making a mockery of the court’s generosity to him. We
granted his three motions for extension of time to file his
comment on the complaint in this case. Yet, not only did
he fail to file the comment, he as well did not even bother
to explain such failure notwithstanding our resolution
declaring him as having waived the filing of the
comment. To the SC, Atty. openly showed a high degree
of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its
lawful orders.
Atty. Ricafort then knowingly and willfully violated Rules
12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility stating that:
Lawyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
court processes; and that lawyers, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs,
should not let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so.
The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Ricafort from the
practice of law and directed to pay Soledad P13,800.
Jonar Santiago vs. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan,
Facts:Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, was allegedly notarized
several documents on different dates and failed to: a)
make the proper notation regarding the Community Tax
Certificate (CTC) of the complainant; b) enter the details
of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and c)
make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and
IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized.
On the other hand, Atty. Rafanan admitted
having administered the oath but believed that non-
notation of the Resident Certificates as well as not
entering the details of the notarized documents in the
notarial register was allowed. Notation of Resident
Certificates are applied only to documents
acknowledged by a notary public and was not
mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before
courts and other government offices. He further asserted
that this was a popular practice among notaries public in
Nueva Ecija, some of whom were older practitioners.
Issues: What is the rule on registry of notarial documents?
Held: The court ruled in the negative. The Notarial Law is
explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public.
They are required to certify that the party to every
document acknowledged before them has presented
the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the
residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue
and date as part of such certification. They are also
required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to enter
therein all instruments notarized by them; and to give to
each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged
before [them] a number corresponding to the one in
[their] register [and to state therein] the page or pages of
[their] register, on which the same is recorded. Failure to
perform these duties would result in the revocation of their
commission as notaries public.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be
simply neglected, considering the degree of importance
and evidentiary weight attached to notarized
documents. Notaries public entering into their
commissions are presumed to be aware of these
elementary requirements.
It is intolerable that he did away with the basics
of notarial procedure allegedly because others were
doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is
not an acceptable justification for breaking the law.
Disbarment, however, cannot be granted
considering the nature of the infraction and the absence
of deceit on the part of Atty. Rafanan. A fine of P3, 000 is
imposed with a warning that similar infractions in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
Alcantara vs. de Vera
Atty. Eduardo De Vera won a case for Rosario Mercado.
De Vera garnished the bank account of the opposing
party but he did not remit the same to Mercado, instead
he claimed that he used the same to pay off the judge
and what’s left was for his attorney’s fees. Mercado filed
an administrative complaint and eventually De Vera was
suspended from the practice of law for one year. In
obvious retaliation, he filed various complaints against
Mercado and her family, the IBP officers who suspended
and several others. He attempted to re-open the case of
her client in an attempt to collect more attorney’s fees.
He also instigated the opposing party in the case he won
for Mercado to file lawsuits against Mercado. The
complaints were dismissed but he re-filed them
nonetheless.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Vera should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. What he did is grossly unethical and filled with
ill-motive. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to remove
from the profession a person whose misconduct has
proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and
thus to protect the public and those charged with the
administration of justice, rather than to punish the
attorney.
Further, De Vera is in violation of Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In filing cases against
Mercado, De Vera used matters and information
acquired by him when he was still the counsel for
Mercado. A lawyer owes loyalty and fidelity to his client
even if the lawyer-client relationship has already
terminated. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation
is terminated.
CANON 13
FOODSPHERE V. MAURICIO
FACTS: Foodsphere, Inc. is the owner of CDO grocery
products. One day, a Mr. Cordero bought canned goods
from a grocery store, one of them being a CDO liver
spread canned good. When Mr. Cordero and his family
ate the liver spread, they found that it tasted sour and
subsequently discovered that the canned good was
infested with a colony of worms. A complaint was filed
with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD)
and a subsequent investigation confirmed the presence
of the parasites. BFAD ordered a hearing between
Foodsphere and the Corderos, where the latter
demanded P150k. Foodsphere refused, resulting to the
Corderos threatening to bring up the matter to the
media.
Meanwhile, Atty Mauricio faxed Foodsphere a
sample front page of a tabloid he was involved with,
which contained articles discrediting the latter, and
threatened to publish it if they didn’t pay the amount the
Corderos wanted. Foodsphere refused as well. Atty
Mauricio thus proposed a ‘Kasunduan’ between the two,
where Foodsphere agreed to settle the matter for a lower
amount, but added that Foodsphere advertise in
Mauricio’s tabloids and tv shows, in exchange for the
withdrawal of the complaint. The Corderos withdrew their
complaint and BFAD dismissed the complaint against
Foodsphere.
Mauricio then sent Foodsphere an ‘Advertising
Contract’ asking the latter advertisements of various
media (which were a lot…and expensive!) owned by
Mauricio. As a sign of goodwill, Foodsphere offered to
patronize some advertisements only. Mauricio was
disappointed with this and threatened to proceed with
the publications. And a few weeks later, Mauricio, in his
radio talk show (Batas ng Bayan) held a guessing contest
with questions that asked which company had worms in
its liver spread. He also wrote in his columns and aired in
his tv shows about the same topic.
Foodsphere filed criminal and civil complaints
against Mauricio about the discrediting remarks that he
has been making against the company. Foodsphere also
filed the present administrative complaint against
Mauricio to the IBP, where he was ordered not to make
any more statements on the matter. Notwithstanding the
pending cases against him, Mauricio continued to publish
articles against Foodsphere and discredit them in his tv
shows. Because of this, the IBP ordered that Mauricio be
suspended for 2 years. Mauricio now challenges the
validity of the suspension.
ISSUE/S: W/N Mauricio’s suspension was valid.
HELD: YES! Mauricio suspended for 3 years.
Continued Attacks Despite Pending Cases =
Violation Of Rule 13.02
Despite the pendency of the case against
Mauricio, and IBP’s orders that he discontinue with his
actions, he still continued with his attacks against
Foodsphere and its products. This is a clear and conscious
violation the Code of Professional Responsibility which is
an improper conduct of a member of the bar.
NOTE: The power of the media to form or
influence public opinion cannot be underestimated.

SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGUBAYAO
FACTS: Administrative case stemmed from the events of
the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5144: People v. Luis
Plaza. Plaza was accused of murdering a policeman.
Criminal case was originally raffled to the sala of
Judge Buyser. Buyser denied the Demurrer to the
Evidence of the accused, declaring that evidence
presented was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide
but not murder.
Counsel for Plaza filed a Motion to Fix Amount of
Bail, but Senior State Prosecutor Bagabuyo (who was in
charge of the case) objected thereto on the ground that
the original charge of murder was not subject to bail
(Rules of Court).
Judge Buyser inhibited himself from trying the
case because of the “harsh insinuation” of Bagabuyo
that he “lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial
magistrate” by allegedly suggesting the filing of the
motion to fix the amount of bail.
Case was transferred to Judge Tan, who fixed the
amount of bail at P40k.
Instead of availing of judicial remediess,
Bagabuyo caused the publication of an article regarding
the Order granting the bail in the Mindanao Gold Star
Daily, “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for
allowing murder suspect to bail out.”
In the article, Bagabuyo argued that the crime of
murder is non-bailable, but admitted that a judge could
still opt to allow a murder suspect to bail out in cases
when the evidence of the prosecution is weak. He claims
that the former judge found the evidence to be strong.
He stated that he was not afraid to be cited for contempt
because it was the only way for the public to know that
there are judges displaying judicial arrogance.
RTC directed Bagabuyo (and the writer of the
article) to explain why he should not be cited for indirect
contempt of court for the publication of the article which
degraded the court with its presiding judge with its lies
and misrepresentations.
Bagabuyo refused to explain and the RTC held
him in contempt of court, sentencing him to 30 days in jail
(he posted a bail bond and was released).
Despite this, Bagabuyo presented himself to the
media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS and again,
attacked the integrity of Judge Tan.
In the radio interview, Bagabuyo called Judge A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any
Tan a liar, ignorant of the law and that as a mahjong violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties, or an
aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying odious deportment unbecoming of an attorney.
the law.
RTC required Bagabuyo to explain and show
cause why he should not be held in contempt and be
suspended from the practice of law for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 11.05 and Rule
13.02).
Bagabuyo denied the charge that he sought to
be interviewed. He said that he was approached by
someone who asked him to comment on the Order. He
justified his response to the interview (at the instance of
his friend) as a simple exercise of his constitutional right of
freedom of speech and that it was made without malice.
RTC found his denials lame, held him in
contempt, and suspended him from the practice of law
for 1 year. In accordance with the Rules of Court, the
case was transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant,
which recommended the implementation of the RTC’s
order of suspension.
ISSUE: W/N Bagabuyo should be held in contempt and
suspended for violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule
13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility – YES
HELD: Canon 11 mandates a lawyer to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers.
Bagabuyo violated Canon 11 when he indirectly
stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance
in the published article and when he stated that Judge
Tan was ignorant of the law and that as a mahjong
aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of the law.
Rule 11.05 states that a lawyer shall submit
grievances against a judge to the proper authorities.
Bagabuyo violated Rule 11.05 when he caused
the holding of a press conference and submitted to a
radio interview to air out his grievances against Judge
Tan.
Rule 13.02 states that a lawyer shall not make
public statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Bagabuyo violated Rule 13.02 when he made
statements in the article, which were made while Criminal
Case No. 5144 was still pending in court.