Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG, Respondent. |
A.C.
No. 8920
Present: BRION,
J.,*
Acting Chairperson, PEREZ, SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: September
28, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Before us is the resolution[1] of the Board of Governors of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) finding
Atty. Melchor Battung liable for violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommending that he be reprimanded. The complainant is Judge Rene B. Baculi,
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2,
Background
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for
disbarment[2]
with the Commission on Discipline of the IBP against the respondent, alleging
that the latter violated Canons 11[3]
and 12[4] of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Violation of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Judge
Baculi 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![5] 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![6] Judge Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort
the respondent out of the courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court
for the second time.
After
his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the respondent at the hall of the
courthouse, apparently waiting for him.
The 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.[7]
Judge
Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the courtroom, he continued
shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.[8]
Violation of Canon 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility
According
to Judge Baculi, the respondent filed dilatory pleadings in Civil Case No.
2640, an ejectment case.
Judge
Baculi rendered on October 4, 2007 a decision in Civil Case No. 2640, which he modified
on December 14, 2007. After the modified decision became final and executory,
the branch clerk of court issued a certificate of finality. The respondent
filed a motion to quash the previously issued writ of execution, raising as a
ground the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant for lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Baculi asserted that the respondent knew as a lawyer that ejectment cases
are within the jurisdiction of First Level Courts and the latter was merely
delaying the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
The
respondent filed his Answer,[9]
essentially saying that it was Judge Baculi who disrespected him.[10] We quote from his Answer:
23. I
only told Judge Rene Baculi I will file Gross ignorance of the Law against him
once inside the court room when he was lambasting me[.]
24. It
was JUDGE BACULI WHO DISRESPECTED ME. He did not like that I just submit the
Motion for Reconsideration without oral argument because he wanted to have an
occasion to just HUMILIATE ME and to make appear to the public that I am A
NEGLIGENT LAWYER, when he said YOU JUSTIFY YOUR NEGLIGENCE BEFORE THIS COURT
making it an impression to the litigants and the public that as if I am a
NEGLIGENT, INCOMPETENT, MUMBLING, and IRRESPONSIBLE LAWYER.
25. These
words of Judge Rene Baculi made me react[.]
x
x x x
28. Since
I manifested that I was not going to orally argue the Motion, Judge Rene Baculi
could have just made an order that the Motion for Reconsideration is submitted
for resolution, but what he did was that he forced me to argue so that he will
have the room to humiliate me as he used to do not only to me but almost of the
lawyers here (sic).
Atty. Battung asked that the case
against him be dismissed.
The IBP conducted its investigation
of the matter through Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. In his Commissioners
Report,[11]
Commissioner De la Rama stated that during the mandatory conference on January
16, 2009, both parties merely reiterated what they alleged in their submitted
pleadings. Both parties agreed that the
original copy of the July 24, 2008 tape of the incident at the courtroom would
be submitted for the Commissioners review.
Judge Baculi submitted the tape and the transcript of stenographic notes
on January 23, 2009.
Commissioner De la Rama narrated his
findings, as follows:[12]
At the first part of
the hearing as reflected in the TSN, it was observed that the respondent was
calm. He politely argued his case but
the voice of the complainant appears to be in high pitch. During the mandatory conference, it was also
observed that indeed, the complainant maintains a high pitch whenever he
speaks. In fact, in the TSN, where there
was already an argument, the complainant stated the following:
Court:
Do not shout.
Atty. Battung: Because the court is shouting.
Court:
This court has been constantly under this kind of voice Atty. Battung, we
are very sorry if you do not want to appear before my court, then you
better attend to your cases and do not appear before my court if you do not
want to be corrected! (TSN, July 24, 2008, page 3)
(NOTE:
The underlined words we are very sorry [ were] actually uttered by
Atty. Battung while the judge was saying the quoted portion of the TSN)
That it was during
the time when the complainant asked the following questions when the
undersigned noticed that Atty. Battung shouted at the presiding judge.
Court:
Did you proceed under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure?
*
Atty. Battung: It is not our fault Your Honor to proceed
because we were asked to present our evidence ex parte. Your Honor, so, if should we were ordered
(sic) by the court to follow the rules on summary procedure. (TSN page 3, July 24, 2008)
It was observed that
the judge uttered the following:
Court:
Do not shout.
Atty. Battung: Because the court is shouting.
(Page 3, TSN July 24, 2008)
Note: * it was at this point when the
respondent shouted at the complainant.
Thereafter, it was
observed that both were already shouting at each other.
Respondent claims
that he was provoked by the presiding judge that is why he shouted back at
him. But after hearing the tape, the
undersigned in convinced that it was Atty. Battung who shouted first at
the complainant.
Presumably, there
were other lawyers and litigants present waiting for their cases to be
called. They must have observed the
incident. In fact, in the
joint-affidavit submitted by Elenita Pacquing et al., they stood as one in saying
that it was really Atty. Battung who shouted at the judge that is why the
latter cautioned him not to shout.
The last part of the
incident as contained in page 4 of the TSN reads as follows:
Court:
You are now ordered to pay a fine of P100.00.
Atty. Battung: We will file the necessary action against
this court for gross ignorance of the law.
Court:
Yes, proceed.
(NOTE: Atty. Battung went out the courtroom)
Court:
Next case.
Interpreter:
Civil Case No. 2746.
(Note: Atty. Battung entered again the
courtroom)
Atty. Battung: But what we do not like (not finished)
Court:
The next time
Atty. Battung: We would like to clear
Court: Sheriff, throw out the counsel, put that
everything in record. If you want to see
me, see me after the court.
Next
case.
Civil
Case No. 2746 for Partition and Damages, Roberto Cabalza vs. Teresita Narag, et
al.
(nothing follows)
Commissioner De
la Rama 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 respondents
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. What the respondent should have done was to file an action before
the Office of the Court Administrator if he believed that Judge Baculi did not
act according to the norms of judicial conduct.
With respect
to the charge of violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Commissioner De la Rama found that the evidence submitted is insufficient to
support a ruling that the respondent had misused the judicial processes to
frustrate the ends of justice.
Commissioner De
la Rama recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for six (6) months.
On October 9,
2010, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with the
modification that the respondent be reprimanded.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the IBPs finding that
the respondent violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him
inside the courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of litigants and
their counsels, and court personnel. The
respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many witnesses,
cannot be allowed. We note that the respondent continued to threaten Judge
Baculi and acted in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his position even after the latter had cited him for
contempt. In fact, after initially leaving the court, the respondent
returned to the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings. These actions
were not only against the person, the position and the stature of Judge Baculi,
but against the court as well whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly
disrupted, and brought to disrepute by the respondent.
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. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due the courts and to judicial officers and should insist
on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
We ruled in Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr.[13]
that it is the duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to uphold the dignity
and authority of the courts. Respect for
the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; without this
guarantee, the institution would be resting on very shaky foundations.
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a
courtroom completely disregards the latters 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 Baculis 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.
The IBP Board of Governors
recommended that Atty. Battung be reprimanded, while the Investigating
Commissioner recommended a penalty of six (6) months suspension.
We believe that these recommended
penalties are too light for the offense.
In Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former Senior State
Prosecutor,[14] we
suspended Atty. Bagabuyo for one year for violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11, and
Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for
violating the Lawyers Oath for airing his grievances against a judge in
newspapers and radio programs. In this case, Atty. Battungs violations are no
less serious as they were committed in
the courtroom in the course of judicial proceedings where the respondent was
acting as an officer of the court, and before the litigating public. His
actions were plainly disrespectful to Judge Baculi and to the court, to the
point of being scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial system
itself.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Melchor A.
Battung is found GUILTY of violating
Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) year effective upon the finality of this Decision. He is STERNLY WARNED that a 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 the respondents
personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate
Justice |
MARIA
Associate
Justice
* Designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 1083 dated September 13, 2011.
** Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 1084 dated September 13, 2011.
*** Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 1107 dated September 27, 2011.
[1] Rollo, p. 161.
[2]
[3] Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
[4] Canon 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
[5] Rollo, p. 2.
[6] Ibid.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] G.R. Nos. 152072 & 152104, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 446.
[14] A.C. No. 7006, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 200.