Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC ADM. CASE No.

7006 October 9, 2007

RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. RO E!IO ". BA ABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR. DECISION A"CUNA, 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 udge ose Manuel P. Tan, Regional Trial Court !RTC" of #urigao Cit$, %ranch &'. Crim. Case No. 5144 (as originall$ raffled to the sala of udge )loripinas C. %u$ser, RTC of #urigao Cit$, %ranch *+. ,n an -rder dated March 14, &++&, udge %u$ser denied the .emurrer to the /vidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented b$ the prosecution (as sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. Conse0uentl$, the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to )i1 the 2mount of %ail %ond. Respondent 2tt$. Rogelio 3. %agabu$o, then #enior #tate Prosecutor and the deputi4ed prosecutor of the case, ob5ected thereto mainl$ on the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable (ith reclusion perpetua, (as not sub5ect to bail under #ec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.1 ,n an -rder dated 2ugust *+, &++&,& udge %u$ser inhibited himself from further tr$ing the case because of the 6harsh insinuation6 of #enior Prosecutor Rogelio 3. %agabu$o that he 6lac7s the cold neutralit$ of an impartial magistrate,6 b$ allegedl$ suggesting the filing of the motion to fi1 the amount of bail bond b$ counsel for the accused. The case (as transferred to %ranch &' of the RTC of #urigao Cit$, presided b$ udge ose Manuel P. Tan. ,n an -rder dated November 1&, &++&, udge Tan favorabl$ resolved the Motion to )i1 the 2mount of %ail %ond, and fi1ed the amount of the bond at P4+,+++. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the -rder dated November 1&, &++&, (hich motion (as denied for lac7 of merit in an -rder dated )ebruar$ 1+, &++*. ,n -ctober, &++*, respondent appealed from the -rders dated November 1&, &++& and )ebruar$ 1+, &++*, to the Court of 2ppeals !C2". ,nstead of availing himself onl$ of 5udicial remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the -rder granting bail to the accused in the 2ugust 18, &++* issue of the Mindanao 9old #tar .ail$. The article, entitled 6 Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out,6 reads: #/N,-R state prosecutor has lashed at a 5udge in #urigao Cit$ for allo(ing a murder suspect to go out on bail. #enior state prosecutor Rogelio %agabu$o lambasted udge Manuel Tan of the Regional Trial Court !RTC" %ranch &' based in #urigao Cit$ for ruling on a motion that sought a bailbond for ;uis Pla4a (ho stands charged (ith murdering a policeman . . . . Pla4a reportedl$ posted a P4+<thousand bail bond. %agabu$o argued that the crime of murder is a non<bailable offense. %ut %agabu$o admitted that a 5udge could still opt to allo( a murder suspect to bail out in cases (hen the evidence of the prosecution is (ea7. %ut in this murder case, %agabu$o said the 5udge (ho previousl$ handled it, udge )=lori>pinas %=u$>ser, described the evidence to be strong. %=u$>ser inhibited from the case for an unclear reason. 111 %agabu$o said he (ould contest Tan?s decision before the Court of 2ppeals and (ould file criminal and administrative charges of certiorari against the 5udge. %agabu$uo said he (as not afraid of being cited in contempt b$ udge Tan. 6This is the onl$ (a$ that the public (ould 7no( that there are 5udges there (ho are displa$ing 5udicial arrogance.6 he said.* ,n an -rder dated 2ugust &1, &++*, the RTC of #urigao Cit$, %ranch &', directed respondent and the (riter of the article, Mar7 )rancisco of the Mindanao 9old #tar .ail$, to appear in court on #eptember &+, &++* to e1plain (h$ the$ should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article (hich degraded the court and its presiding 5udge (ith its lies and misrepresentation. The said -rder stated that contrar$ to the statements in the article, udge %u$ser described the evidence for the prosecution as not strong, but sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused onl$ for homicide. Moreover, it (as not true that udge %u$ser inhibited himself from the case for an unclear reason. udge %u$ser, in an -rder dated 2ugust *+, &++&, declared in open court in the presence of respondent that he (as inhibiting himself from the case due to the harsh insinuation of respondent that he lac7ed the cold neutralit$ of an impartial 5udge. -n the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge, Mar7 )rancisco admitted that the Mindanao 9old #tar .ail$ caused the publication of the article. @e disclosed that respondent, in a press conference, stated that the crime of murder is non<bailable. Ahen as7ed b$ the trial court (h$ he printed such lies, Mr. )rancisco ans(ered that his onl$ source (as respondent.4 Mr. )rancisco clarified that in the statement alleging that udge %u$ser inhibited himself from the case for an unclear reason, the phrase 6for an unclear reason,6 (as added b$ the ne(spaper?s /1ecutive /ditor @erb$ #. 9ome4.5 Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to ans(er (hether he made the statements in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss. )or his refusal to ans(er, the trial court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to #ec. *, Rule B1 of the Rules of Court.C The Court?s -rder dated #eptember *+, &++* reads: -R./R Mr. Mar7 )rancisco for publishing this article (hich is a lie clothed in half truth to give it a semblance of truth is hereb$ ordered to pa$ a fine of P1+,+++. Prosecutor %agabu$o, for obstinatel$ refusing to e1plain (h$ he should not be cited for contempt and admitting that the article published in the Mindanao 9old #tar .ail$ on 2ugust 18, &++* and 0uoted in the -rder of this Court dated 2ugust &1, &++* (hich is contemptuous (as caused b$ him to be published, is hereb$ ad5udged to have committed indirect contempt of Court pursuant to #ection * of Rule B1 of the Rules of Court and he is hereb$ ordered to suffer the penalt$ of *+ da$s in 5ail. The % MP is hereb$ ordered to arrest Prosecutor Rogelio 3. %agabu$o if he does not put up a bond of P1++,+++.++. #- -R./R..B

Respondent posted the re0uired bond and (as released from the custod$ of the la(. @e appealed the indirect contempt order to the C2. .espite the citation of indirect contempt, respondent presented himself to the media for intervie(s in Radio #tation .DE#, and again attac7ed the integrit$ of udge Tan and the trial court?s disposition in the proceedings of Crim. Case No. 5144. ,n an -rder dated -ctober &+, &++*, the RTC of #urigao Cit$, %ranch &', re0uired respondent to e1plain and to sho( cause (ithin five da$s from receipt thereof (h$ he should not be held in contempt for his media intervie(s that degraded the court and the presiding 5udge, and (h$ he should not be suspended from the practice of la( for violating the Code of Professional Responsibilit$, specificall$ Rule 11.+5 of Canon 118 and Rule 1*.+& of Canon 1*.' ,n the -rder, the trial court stated that respondent (as intervie(ed b$ un Clergio, and that the intervie( (as repeatedl$ aired on #eptember *+, &++* and in his ne(s program bet(een C:++ and 8:++ a.m. on -ctober 1, &++*. @e (as also intervie(ed b$ Ton$ Consing on -ctober 1 and &, &++*, bet(een 8:++ and ':++ a.m. in his radio program. ,n those radio intervie(s, respondent allegedl$ called udge Tan a 5udge (ho does not 7no( the la(, a liar, and a dictator (ho does not accord due process to the people. The hearing for the second contempt charge (as set on .ecember 4, &++*. -n November, &+, &++*, respondent filed an Frgent Motion for /1tension of Time to )ile 2ns(er to Contempt alleging that he (as saddled (ith (or7 of e0ual importance and needed ample time to ans(er the same. @e also pra$ed for a bill of particulars in order to properl$ prepare for his defense. ,n an -rder dated November &+, &++*, the trial court denied the motion. ,t stated that a bill of particulars is not applicable in contempt proceedings, and that respondent?s actions and statements are detailed in the -rder of -ctober &+, &++*. -n the scheduled hearing of .ecember 4, &++* respondent neither appeared in court nor informed the court of his absence. The trial court issued an -rder dated .ecember 4, &++* cancelling the hearing 6to give Prosecutor %agabu$o all the chances he as7s for,6 and ordered him to appear on anuar$ 1&, &++4 to e1plain in (riting or orall$ (h$ he should not be cited in contempt of court pursuant to the facts stated in the -rder dated -ctober &+, &++*. @o(ever, respondent did not appear in the scheduled hearing of anuar$ 1&, &++4. -n anuar$ 15, &++4, the trial court received respondent?s 2ns(er dated anuar$ 8, &++4. Respondent denied the charge that he sought to be intervie(ed b$ radio station .DE#. @e, ho(ever, stated that right after the hearing of #eptember *+, &++*, he (as approached b$ someone (ho as7ed him to comment on the -rder issued in open court, and that his comment does not fall (ithin the concept of indirect contempt of court. @e also admitted that he (as intervie(ed b$ his friend, Ton$ Consing, at the latter?s instance. @e 5ustified his response during the intervie( as a simple e1ercise of his constitutional right of freedom of speech and that it (as not meant to offend or malign, and (as (ithout malice. -n )ebruar$ 8, &++4, the trial court issued an -rder, the dispositive portion of (hich reads: A@/R/)-R/, finding preponderant evidence that Prosecutor %agabu$o has grossl$ violated the Canons of the legal profession and =is> guilt$ of grave professional misconduct, rendering him unfit to continue to be entrusted (ith the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorne$, he is hereb$ #F#P/N./. from the practice of la(. ;i7e(ise, he is also found guilt$ of indirect contempt of court, for (hich he is hereb$ ordered to suffer the penalt$ of ,MPR,#-NM/NT for ninet$ !'+" da$s to be served at the #urigao Cit$ ail and to pa$ the ma1imum fine of T@,RTG T@-F#2N. P/#-# !P*+,+++.++". )uture acts of contempt (ill be dealt (ith more severel$. ;et copies of the relevant records be immediatel$ for(arded to the #upreme Court for automatic revie( and for further determination of grounds for =the> disbarment of Prosecutor Rogelio 3. %agabu$o.1+ The trial court found respondent?s denials to be lame as the tape of his intervie( on -ctober &, &++*, dul$ transcribed, sho(ed disrespect of the court and its officers, thus: T-NG C-N#,N9: )iscal, nanglabay ang mga oras, nanglabay ang gamay'ng panahon ang samad sa imong asing asing nagpabilin pa ba ni. ! ingnon nato duna na bay pagbag"o sa imong huna"huna aron# !)iscal, after the lapse of time, are $ou still hurtH -r have $ou not changed $our mind $etH" %292%FG- : $ng a ong huna"huna on aduna man ugaling pagbag"o ang pagsiguro, ang mga %uwes nga dili mahibalo sa balaod tangtangon pag a abogado, mao ana. !,f m$ mind has changed at all, it is that , ensure that all 5udges (ho are ignorant of the la( should be disbarred. That?s it." 111 %292%FG- : &ao ana ang tinuod, 'on, ug ining a ong guibatonan aron nga hunahuna mahitungod nianang mga %uwes nga dili ahibalo sa balaod, mag adugay mag alami. (ada adlao nagatoon a o. )agabasa a o sa mga bag" ong 5urisprudence ug sa atong balaod aron sa pagsiguro gayod nga inigsang"at unya na o sa aso nga disbarment niining di mahibalo nga %uwes, sigurado gayod a o nga atangtangan siya sa lisensiya . . . . $ng ini nga %uwes nga dili mahibalo sa balaod, pagatangtangon na, dili lamang sa pag a"%uwes on dili sa pag a"abogado. 'an"awa ra gyod ining iyang gibuhat nga-rder, Ton, ang iyang pag aba a on . . . . !That?s true, Ton, and this conviction , have no( about 5udges (ho are ignorant of the la( is made firmer b$ time. , stud$ ever$da$. , read ne( 5urisprudence and the la( to insure that (hen , file the disbarment case against this udge (ho does not 7no( his la(, , am certain that he loses his license. . . . This 5udge (ho is ignorant of the la( should not onl$ be removed as a 5udge but should also be disbarred. ust ta7e a loo7 at his -rder, Ton, and see (hat a liar he is . . . ." 111 %292%FG- : Ges, nag"ingon ang iyang -rder. . . . )gano nga na aingon a o nga ba a on ini, nag"ingon nga ini onong order given in open court, ang alooy sa dios, ang iyang order sa (orte wala siya mag"ingon ug antidad nga P1++,+++.++ nga bail bond. . . . !Ges, his -rder said that . . . . Ah$ did , sa$ that he is a liarH ,t states that this -rder (as 6given in open court,6 and in 9od?s merc$, he did not state the amount of P1++,+++.++ as bail bond. . . ." %292%FG- : (ay dili man lagi mahibalo sa balaod, a o siyang gui"ingnan, Gour @onor, , have the right to appeal. &ibali dayon, ug miingon siya, % MP arrest %agabu$o. !%ecause he does not 7no( the la(, , said, 6Gour @onor, , have the right to appeal.6 Then he came bac7 and said, 6% MP, arrest %agabu$o.6"

111 %292%FG- : . . . P1++,+++.++ ang iyang guipapiyansa. )aunsa na# *inhi ma ita nimo ang iyang pag a gross ignorance of the la(. . . . !@e imposed a bail of P1++,+++.++. @o( comeH This is (here $ou (ill see his gross ignorance of the la(. . . . " 111 T-NG C-N#,N9 : #o aron, unsay plano nimo aron# !#o (hat is $our plan no(H" %292%FG- : Sumala sa a ong gui"ingon moundang lang a o on matangtang na siya sa pag a abogado. . . . !2s , have said, , (ill onl$ stop if he is alread$ disbarred. . . ." 111 %292%FG- : )asu o siya niini ay hambugero uno, pero angayan niyang hibaw"an nga ang trabajo sa %uwes dili ang pagtan"aw on ang tawo hambugero . . . . +g ang a ong gisulti mao lamang ang balaod nga siya in fact at that time , said he is not conversant of the la(, (ith regards to the case of murder. . . . !@e got angr$ because , (as allegedl$ bragging but he should 7no( that it is not for a 5udge to determine if a person is a braggart. . . .2nd (hat , said (as based on the la(. ,n fact, at that time, , said he is not conversant of the la(, (ith regards to the case of murder . . . ." 111 %292%FG- : $h, mi sit do(n sab a o, contempt ra ba adto . . . . &ao ana, pero unsa may iyang atuyoan , ang iyang atuyoan nga ipa"adto a o didto ay didto, iya a ong pa auwawan ay iya ong si opon, iya ong ipa"priso, pero ay di man lagi mahibalo sa balaod, ang iyang gui orderan B-&P, intawon por dios por Santo, Mr. Tan, pagbasa intawon ug balaod, naunsa a ba Mr. Tan# +nsa may imong hunahuna nga on i aw %uwes, i aw na ang di tador, no (a$, no sir, ours is a democratic countr$ (here all and ever$one is entitled to due process of la( I $ou did not accord me due process of la( . . . . !, sat do(n. . . . That?s it. %ut (hat (as his purposeH @e made me come in order to humiliate me because he (anted me arrested, he (anted me imprisoned, but because he is ignorant of the la(, he ordered the %M P. )or 9od?s sa7e, Mr. Tan, (hat?s (rong (ith $ou, Mr. TanH Please read the la(. Ahat is $our thin7ingH That (hen $ou are a 5udge, $ou are also a dictatorH No (a$, no sir, ours is a democratic countr$ (here all and ever$one is entitled to due process of la( I $ou did not accord me due process of la(. . . ." T-NG C-N#,N9: #o mopasa a Suprema. ang disbarment, malaumon ita nga maa siyonan ini, (ith all this problem sa (orte

!#o $ou are filing a disbarment caseH Ae hope that this be given action (ith all the problems in the #upreme Court." %292%FG- : *ili a o mabala a niana ay usa a truc7 ang a ong 5urisprudence, nga ang mga %uwes nga di mahibalo sa balaod pagatangtangon gayod sa ilang pag a %uwes. . . . $pan unsa man intawon ang balaod ang iyang gibasa niini nadunggan o nga ini uno siya madjongero, mao bitaw na, madjong ang iyang guitunan# !, am not (orried because , have a truc7load of 5urisprudence that 5udges (ho are ignorant of the la( must be removed from the %ench. %ut (hat la( has he been readingH , heard that he is a mah5ong aficionado!mah5ongero" and that is (h$ he is stud$ing mah5ong.11 The trial court concluded that respondent, as a member of the bar and an officer of the court, is dut$ bound to uphold the dignit$ and authorit$ of the court, and should not promote distrust in the administration of 5ustice. The trial court stated that it is empo(ered to suspend respondent from the practice of la( under #ec. &8, Rule 1*8 of the Rules of Court1& for an$ of the causes mentioned in #ec. &B1* of the same Rule. Respondent (as given the opportunit$ to be heard, but he opted to be silent. Thus, it held that the re0uirement of due process has been dul$ satisfied. ,n accordance (ith the provisions of #ec. &',14 Rule 1*8 and #ec. ',15 Rule 1*' of the Rules of Court, the RTC of #urigao Cit$, %ranch &', transmitted to the -ffice of the %ar Confidant the #tatement of )acts of respondent?s suspension from the practice of la(, dated ul$ 14, &++5, together (ith the order of suspension and other relevant documents. ,n its Report dated anuar$ 4, &++C, the -ffice of the %ar Confidant found that the article in the 2ugust 18, &++* issue of the Mindanao 9old #tar .ail$, (hich maligned the integrit$ and independence of the court and its officers, and respondent?s criticism of the trial court?s -rder dated November 1&, &++&, (hich (as aired in radio station .DE#, both in connection (ith Crim. Case No. 5144, constitute grave violation of oath of office b$ respondent. ,t stated that the re0uirement of due process (as complied (ith (hen respondent (as given an opportunit$ to be heard, but respondent chose to remain silent. The -ffice of the %ar Confidant recommended the implementation of the trial court?s order of suspension dated )ebruar$ 8, &++4, and that respondent be suspended from the practice of la( for one $ear, (ith a stern (arning that the repetition of a similar offense (ill be dealt (ith more severel$. The Court approves the recommendation of the -ffice of the %ar Confidant. ,t has been reiterated in .onzaga v. /illanueva, -r.1C that: 2 la($er ma$ be disbarred or suspended for an$ violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming an attorne$. 2mong the grounds enumerated in #ection &B, Rule 1*8 of the Rules of Court are deceitJ malpracticeJ gross misconduct in officeJ grossl$ immoral conductJ conviction of a crime involving moral turpitudeJ an$ violation of the oath (hich he is re0uired to ta7e before admission to the practice of la(J (illful disobedience of an$ la(ful order of a superior courtJ corrupt or (illful appearance as an attorne$ for a part$ to a case (ithout authorit$ to do so. The grounds are not preclusive in nature even as the$ are broad enough as to cover practicall$ an$ 7ind of impropriet$ that a la($er does or commits in his professional career or in his private life. 2 la($er must at no time be (anting in probit$ and moral fiber (hich are not onl$ conditions precedent to his entrance to the %ar, but are li7e(ise essential demands for his continued membership therein. ;a($ers are licensed officers of the courts (ho are empo(ered to appear, prosecute and defendJ and upon (hom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved b$ la( as a conse0uence.1B Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations.18 Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit$ mandates a la($er to 6observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to 5udicial officers and =he> should insist on similar conduct b$ others.6 Rule 11.+5 of Canon 11 states that a la($er 6shall submit grievances against a 5udge to the proper authorities onl$.6

Respondent violated Rule 11.+5 of Canon 11 (hen he admittedl$ caused the holding of a press conference (here he made statements against the -rder dated November 1&, &++& allo(ing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail. Respondent also violated Canon 11 (hen he indirectl$ stated that udge Tan (as displa$ing 5udicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, (hich appeared in the 2ugust 18, &++* issue of the Mindanao 9old #tar .ail$. Respondent?s statements in the article, (hich (ere made (hile Crim. Case No. 5144 (as still pending in court, also violated Rule 1*.+& of Canon 1*, (hich states that 6a la($er shall not ma7e public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a part$.6 ,n regard to the radio intervie( given to Ton$ Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.+5 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit$ for not resorting to the proper authorities onl$ for redress of his grievances against udge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer (hen he stated that udge Tan (as ignorant of the la(, that as a mah5ong aficionado, he (as stud$ing mah5ong instead of stud$ing the la(, and that he (as a liar. Respondent also violated the ;a($er?s -ath, as he has s(orn to 6conduct =himself> as a la($er according to the best of =his> 7no(ledge and discretion (ith all good fidelit$ as (ell to the courts as to =his> clients.6 2s a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the e1ample of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to 5udicial officers. &ontecillo v. .ica1' held: ,t is the dut$ of the la($er to maintain to(ards the courts a respectful attitude. 2s an officer of the court, it is his dut$ to uphold the dignit$ and authorit$ of the court to (hich he o(es fidelit$, according to the oath he has ta7en. Respect for the courts guarantees the stabilit$ of our democratic institutions (hich, (ithout such respect, (ould be resting on a ver$ sha7$ foundation. The Court is not against la($ers raising grievances against erring 5udges but the rules clearl$ provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisel$ because respect for the institution must al(a$s be maintained. #$EREFORE, in vie( of the foregoing, 2tt$. Rogelio 3. %agabu$o is found guilt$ of violating Rule 11.+5, Canon 11 and Rule 1*.+&, Canon 1* of the Code of Professional Responsibilit$, and of violating the ;a($er?s -ath, for (hich he is SUSPENDED from the practice of la( for one !1" $ear effective upon finalit$ of this .ecision, (ith a STERN #ARNIN that the repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt (ith more severel$. ;et copies of this .ecision be furnished the -ffice of the %ar Confidant to be appended to respondent?s personal record as an attorne$, the ,ntegrated %ar of the Philippines, the .epartment of ustice, and all courts in the countr$ for their information and guidance. No costs. SO ORDERED.