EN BANC
RE
: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ADM. CASE No. 7006
ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER
SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ.
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR.,
NACHURA,
and
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
October
9, 2007
X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This administrative case stemmed from
the events of the proceedings in Crim. Case No. 5144, entitled People
v. Luis Bucalon Plaza, heard before the sala of Presiding Judge Jose Manuel
P. Tan, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally
raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser, RTC of Surigao City, Branch
30. In an Order dated
In an Order dated August 30, 2002,[2] Judge
Buyser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the “harsh insinuation”
of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Z. 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 bond by counsel for the accused.
The case was transferred to Branch 29
of the RTC of Surigao City, presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan. In an Order dated P40,000.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Order dated
Instead of availing himself only of
judicial remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding
the Order granting bail to the accused in the
SENIOR
state prosecutor has lashed at a judge in
Senior
state prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo lambasted Judge Manuel Tan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 29 based in
Plaza
reportedly posted a P40-thousand bail bond.
Bagabuyo
argued that the crime of murder is a non-bailable offense. But Bagabuyo 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.
But in this murder case, Bagabuyo said the judge who previously handled it, Judge F[lori]pinas B[uy]ser, described the evidence to be strong. B[uy]ser inhibited from the case for an unclear reason.
x x x
Bagabuyo said he would contest Tan’s decision before the Court of Appeals and would file criminal and administrative charges of certiorari against the judge.
Bagabuyuo said he was not afraid of being cited in contempt by Judge Tan.
“This
is the only way that the public would know that there are judges there who are
displaying judicial arrogance.” he said.[3]
In an Order dated August 21, 2003, the
RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, directed respondent and the writer of the
article, Mark Francisco of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily, to appear in court on
September 20, 2003 to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt
of court for the publication of the article which degraded the court and its
presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.
The said Order stated that contrary
to the statements in the article, Judge Buyser described the evidence for the
prosecution as not strong, but sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
only for homicide. Moreover, it was not
true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an unclear reason. Judge Buyser, in an Order dated
On the scheduled hearing of the
contempt charge, Mark Francisco admitted that the Mindanao Gold Star Daily caused
the publication of the article. He
disclosed that respondent, in a press conference, stated that the crime of
murder is non-bailable. When asked by the trial court why he printed such lies,
Mr. Francisco answered that his only source was respondent.[4]
Mr. Francisco clarified that in the
statement alleging that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from the case for
an unclear reason, the phrase “for an unclear reason,” was added by the
newspaper’s Executive Editor Herby S. Gomez.[5]
Respondent admitted that he caused
the holding of the press conference, but refused to answer whether he made the
statements in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss. For his refusal to answer, the trial court
declared him in contempt of court pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court.[6] The Court’s Order dated
ORDER
Mr.
Mark Francisco for publishing this article which is a lie clothed in half truth
to give it a semblance of truth is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P10,000. Prosecutor Bagabuyo, for obstinately refusing
to explain why he should not be cited for contempt and admitting that the
article published in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily on August 18, 2003 and quoted
in the Order of this Court dated August 21, 2003 which is contemptuous was caused
by him to be published, is hereby adjudged to have committed indirect contempt
of Court pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and he is
hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of 30 days in jail. The BJMP is hereby ordered to arrest
Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo if he does not put up a bond of P100,000.00.
SO ORDERD.[7]
Respondent posted the required bond
and was released from the custody of the law.
He appealed the indirect contempt order to the CA.
Despite the citation of indirect
contempt, respondent presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio
Station DXKS, and again attacked the integrity of Judge Tan and the trial
court’s disposition in the proceedings of Crim. Case No. 5144.
In an Order dated October 20, 2003, the
RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, required respondent to explain and to show
cause within five days from receipt thereof why he should not be held in
contempt for his media interviews that degraded the court and the presiding
judge, and why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 11.05 of Canon
11[8]
and Rule 13.02 of Canon 13.[9]
In the Order, the trial court stated
that respondent was interviewed by Jun Clergio, and that the interview was
repeatedly aired on September 30, 2003 and in his news program between 6:00 and
8:00 a.m. on
The hearing for the second contempt charge was
set on
On
In an Order dated
On the scheduled hearing of
On
On
WHEREFORE,
finding preponderant evidence that Prosecutor Bagabuyo has grossly violated the
Canons of the legal profession and [is] guilty of grave professional
misconduct, rendering him unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, he is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law.
Likewise,
he is also found guilty of indirect contempt of court, for which he is hereby
ordered to suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT for ninety (90) days to be served
at the Surigao City Jail and to pay the maximum fine of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00). Future acts of contempt will be dealt with
more severely.
Let copies of the relevant records be immediately forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and for further determination of grounds for [the] disbarment of Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo.[10]
The trial court found respondent’s
denials to be lame as the tape of his interview on
TONY
CONSING: Fiscal,
nanglabay ang mga oras, nanglabay ang
gamay’ng panahon ang samad sa imong kasingkasing nagpabilin pa ba
ni. O ingnon nato duna na bay pagbag-o sa imong
huna-huna karon?
(Fiscal,
after the lapse of time, are you still hurt?
Or have you not changed your mind yet?)
BAGABUYO : Ang akong huna-huna kon aduna man ugaling
pagbag-o ang pagsiguro, ang mga Huwes nga dili mahibalo sa balaod tangtangon
pagka abogado, mao kana.
(If my mind has changed at all, it is
that I ensure that all judges who are ignorant of the law should be disbarred. That’s it.)
x x x
BAGABUYO :
Mao kana ang tinuod, Ton, ug
kining akong guibatonan karon nga hunahuna mahitungod nianang mga Huwes nga
dili kahibalo sa balaod, magkadugay magkalami.
Kada adlao nagatoon ako. Nagabasa
ako sa mga bag-ong jurisprudence ug sa atong balaod aron sa pagsiguro gayod nga
inigsang-at unya nako sa kaso nga disbarment niining di mahibalo nga
Huwes, sigurado gayod ako nga katangtangan siya sa lisensiya . . . . Ang kini nga Huwes nga dili mahibalo sa balaod, pagatangtangon na,
dili lamang sa pagka-Huwes kon dili sa pagka-abogado. Tan-awa ra gyod kining iyang gibuhat nga Order, Ton, ang iyang
pagkabakakon . . . .
(That’s
true, Ton, and this conviction I have now about judges who are ignorant of the
law is made firmer by time. I study
everyday. I read new jurisprudence and
the law to insure that when I file the disbarment case against this Judge
who does not know his law, I am certain
that he loses his license. . . . This judge who is ignorant of the law
should not only be removed as a judge but should also be disbarred. Just take a look at his Order, Ton, and see
what a liar he is . . . .)
x x x
BAGABUYO :
Yes, nag-ingon ang iyang Order. . . . Ngano nga nakaingon ako nga bakakon kini,
nag-ingon nga kini konong order given in open court, ang kalooy sa dios,
ang iyang order sa Korte wala siya mag-ingon ug kantidad nga P100,000.00
nga bail bond. . . .
(Yes,
his Order said that . . . . Why did I say that he is a liar? It states that this Order was “given in open
court,” and in God’s mercy, he
did not state the amount of P100,000.00 as bail
bond. . . .)
BAGABUYO : Kay
dili man lagi mahibalo
sa balaod,
ako
siyang
gui-ingnan, Your Honor, I have the right to appeal. Mibalik dayon, ug miingon siya, BJMP arrest
Bagabuyo.
(Because he
does not know the law, I said, “Your Honor, I have the right to
appeal.” Then he came back and said,
“BJMP, arrest Bagabuyo.”)
x x x
BAGABUYO
: . .
. P100,000.00 ang iyang guipapiyansa.
Naunsa na? Dinhi
makita nimo ang iyang pagka gross ignorance of the law. . . .
(He
imposed a bail of P100,000.00.
How come? This is where you will
see his gross ignorance of the law. . . . )
x x x
TONY CONSING : So karon, unsay
(So
what is your plan now?)
BAGABUYO : Sumala
sa akong gui-ingon moundang lang ako kon matangtang na siya sa pagka abogado. .
. .
(As I
have said, I will only stop if he is already disbarred. . . .)
x x x
BAGABUYO :
Nasuko siya niini kay
hambugero kuno, pero angayan niyang hibaw-an nga ang trabajo sa Huwes dili ang
pagtan-aw kon ang tawo hambugero . . . .
Ug ang akong gisulti mao lamang ang balaod nga siya in fact at that
time I said he is not conversant of the
law, with regards to the case of murder. . . .
(He got angry because I was allegedly
bragging but he should know that it is not for a judge to determine if a person
is a braggart. . . .And what I said was based on the law. In fact, at that time, I said he is not
conversant of the law, with regards to the case of murder . . . .)
x x x
BAGABUYO :
Ah, mi sit down sab ako,
contempt ra ba kadto . . . . Mao
kana, pero unsa may iyang katuyoan – ang iyang katuyoan nga ipa-adto ako didto
kay didto, iya akong pakauwawan kay iya kong sikopon, iya kong ipa-priso, pero
kay di man lagi mahibalo sa balaod, ang iyang gui orderan BJMP, intawon por
dios por Santo, Mr. Tan, pagbasa intawon ug balaod, naunsa ka ba Mr.
Tan? Unsa may imong hunahuna nga kon
ikaw Huwes, ikaw na ang diktador, no way, no sir, ours is a democratic
country where all and everyone is entitled to due process of law – you did not
accord me due process of law . . . .
(I sat
down. . . . That’s it. But what was his purpose? He made me come in order to humiliate me
because he wanted me arrested, he wanted me imprisoned, but because he is
ignorant of the law, he ordered the BMJP.
For God’s sake, Mr. Tan, what’s wrong with you, Mr. Tan? Please read the law. What is your thinking? That when you are a judge, you are also a
dictator? No way, no sir, ours is a
democratic country where all and everyone is entitled to due process of law –
you did not accord me due process of law. . . .)
TONY
CONSING: So mopasaka kang disbarment, malaumon
kita nga maaksiyonan kini, with all this problem sa Korte Suprema.
(So
you are filing a disbarment case? We
hope that this be given action with all the problems in the Supreme Court.)
BAGABUYO :
Dili ako mabalaka niana kay
(I am not worried because I have a truckload of jurisprudence that judges who are ignorant of the law must be removed from the Bench. But what law has he been reading? I heard that he is a mahjong aficionado (mahjongero) and that is why he is studying mahjong.[11]
The trial court concluded that respondent,
as a member of the bar and an officer of the court, is duty bound to uphold the
dignity and authority of the court, and should not promote distrust in the administration of
justice.
The trial court stated that it is
empowered to suspend respondent from the practice of law under Sec. 28, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court[12] for any of the causes mentioned in Sec. 27[13]
of the same Rule. Respondent was given the
opportunity to be heard, but he opted to be silent. Thus, it held that the
requirement of due process has been duly satisfied.
In accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 29,[14] Rule
138 and Sec. 9,[15] Rule
139 of the Rules of Court, the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, transmitted to
the Office of the Bar Confidant the Statement of Facts of respondent’s suspension
from the practice of law, dated July 14, 2005, together with the order of
suspension and other relevant documents.
In its Report dated January 4, 2006, the Office of the Bar Confidant found that the article in the August 18, 2003 issue of
the Mindanao Gold Star Daily, which maligned the integrity and independence of
the court and its officers, and respondent’s criticism of the trial court’s
Order dated November 12, 2002, which was aired in radio station DXKS, both in connection with Crim. Case No. 5144,
constitute grave violation of oath of
office by respondent. It stated that the
requirement of due process was complied with when respondent was given an
opportunity to be heard, but respondent chose to remain silent.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the implementation
of the trial court’s order of suspension dated February 8, 2004, and that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning that
the repetition of a similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.
The Court approves the recommendation
of the Office of the Bar Confidant. It has
been reiterated in Gonzaga v. Villanueva, Jr.[16] that:
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of
his oath, a patent disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming
an attorney. Among the grounds
enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court are deceit;
malpractice; gross misconduct in office; grossly immoral conduct; conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude; any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to the practice of law; willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court; corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so. The grounds are not preclusive in nature even
as they are broad enough as to cover practically any kind of impropriety that a
lawyer does or commits in his professional career or in his private life. A
lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only
conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar, but are likewise essential
demands for his continued membership therein.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the
courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a
consequence.[17] Membership
in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations.[18]
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to “observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should
insist on similar conduct by others.”
Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer “shall submit grievances
against a judge to the proper authorities only.”
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of
Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he
made statements against the Order dated
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when
he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article
entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts
Surigao judge for allowing murder
suspect to bail out, which appeared
in the
In regard to the radio interview given
to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only
for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his
disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant
of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado,
he was studying mahjong instead of studying
the law, and that he was a liar.
Respondent
also violated the Lawyer’s Oath, as he
has sworn to “conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his]
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
[his] clients.”
As a senior
state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the
example of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers. Montecillo v. Gica[19] held:
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts
a respectful attitude. As an officer of
the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to
which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the
stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be
resting on a very shaky foundation.
The Court is not
against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly
provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because
respect for the institution must always be maintained.
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating
Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year effective upon finality of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that the repetition of a
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished
the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal record
as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
||
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO
C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate
Justice |
|
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception.-- All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right x x x (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
[2] Rollo, p. 45.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. – After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
x x x
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
[7] Rollo, p. 126.
[8] CANON 11 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS
x x x
Rule 11.05. – A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
[9] CANON 13 – A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT
x x x
Rule 13.02. – A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
[10] Rollo, pp. 153-154.
[11] RTC Order,
[12] Sec.
28. Suspension of attorney by the
Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court. -- The Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial
Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the
last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not
practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the
premises.
[13]
Sec.
27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.--
A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court; corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
[14] Sec. 29. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. – Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make full investigation of the facts involved and make such order revoking or extending the suspension, or removing the attorney from his office as such, as the facts warrant.
[15] Sec. 9. Procedure in Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court.—As far as may be applicable, the procedure above outlined shall likewise govern the filing and investigation of complaints against attorneys in the Court of Appeals or in Regional Trial Court. In case of suspension of the respondent, the judge of [the] Regional Trial Court or Justice of the Court of Appeals shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which [the] same is based.
[16] Adm. Case No. 1954,
[17] Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148,
[18] Ibid.
[19] No.
L-36800,