3/12/2017 A.C.No.

7006

ENBANC



RE:SUSPENSIONOFATTY.ADM.CASENo.7006
ROGELIOZ.BAGABUYO,FORMER
SENIORSTATEPROSECUTORPresent:

PUNO,C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ.
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,and
REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:
October9,2007
XX


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,
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofSurigaoCity,Branch29.

Crim.CaseNo.5144wasoriginallyraffledtothesalaofJudgeFloripinasC.Buyser,RTCofSurigao
City,Branch30.InanOrderdatedMarch14,2002,JudgeBuyserdeniedtheDemurrertotheEvidenceof
theaccused,declaringthattheevidencethuspresentedbytheprosecutionwassufficienttoprovethecrime
ofhomicideandnotthechargeofmurder.Consequently,thecounselforthedefensefiledaMotiontoFix
the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State Prosecutor and the
deputizedprosecutorofthecase,objectedtheretomainlyonthegroundthattheoriginalchargeof murder,
[1]
punishablewithreclusionperpetua,wasnotsubjecttobailunderSec.4,Rule114oftheRulesofCourt.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 1/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006
punishablewithreclusionperpetua,wasnotsubjecttobailunderSec.4,Rule114oftheRulesofCourt.

[2]
InanOrderdatedAugust30,2002, Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further trying the case
becauseoftheharshinsinuationofSeniorProsecutorRogelioZ.Bagabuyothathelacksthecoldneutrality
ofanimpartialmagistrate,byallegedlysuggestingthefilingofthemotiontofixtheamountofbailbondby
counselfortheaccused.

ThecasewastransferredtoBranch29oftheRTCofSurigaoCity,presidedbyJudgeJoseManuelP.
Tan.InanOrderdatedNovember12,2002,JudgeTanfavorablyresolvedtheMotiontoFixtheAmountof
BailBond,andfixedtheamountofthebondatP40,000.

RespondentfiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheOrderdatedNovember12,2002,whichmotion
wasdeniedforlackofmeritinanOrderdatedFebruary10,2003.In October, 2003, respondent appealed
fromtheOrdersdatedNovember12,2002andFebruary10,2003,totheCourtofAppeals(CA).

Insteadofavailinghimselfonlyofjudicialremedies,respondentcausedthepublicationofanarticle
regardingtheOrdergrantingbailtotheaccusedintheAugust18,2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star
Daily. The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail
out,reads:

SENIORstateprosecutorhaslashedatajudgeinSurigaoCityforallowingamurdersuspecttogoout
onbail.

Senior state prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo lambasted Judge Manuel Tan of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC)Branch29basedinSurigaoCityforrulingonamotionthatsoughtabailbondforLuisPlazawhostands
chargedwithmurderingapoliceman....

PlazareportedlypostedaP40thousandbailbond.

Bagabuyo argued that the crime of murder is a nonbailable 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,describedtheevidencetobestrong.B[uy]serinhibitedfromthecaseforanunclearreason.

xxx

BagabuyosaidhewouldcontestTansdecisionbeforetheCourtofAppealsandwouldfilecriminaland
administrativechargesofcertiorariagainstthejudge.

BagabuyuosaidhewasnotafraidofbeingcitedincontemptbyJudgeTan.

Thisistheonlywaythatthepublicwouldknowthattherearejudgestherewhoaredisplayingjudicial
[3]
arrogance.hesaid.

InanOrderdatedAugust21,2003,theRTCofSurigaoCity,Branch29,directedrespondentandthe
writerofthearticle,MarkFranciscooftheMindanaoGoldStarDaily,toappearincourtonSeptember20,
2003toexplainwhytheyshouldnotbecitedforindirectcontemptofcourtforthepublicationofthearticle
whichdegradedthecourtanditspresidingjudgewithitsliesandmisrepresentation.

The said Order stated that contrary to the statements in the article, Judge Buyser described the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 2/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006

evidencefortheprosecutionasnotstrong,butsufficienttoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedonlyforhomicide.
Moreover, it was not true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an unclear reason.Judge
Buyser,inanOrderdatedAugust30,2002,declaredinopencourtinthepresenceofrespondentthathewas
inhibitinghimselffromthecaseduetotheharshinsinuationofrespondentthathelackedthecoldneutrality
ofanimpartialjudge.

Onthescheduledhearingofthecontemptcharge,MarkFranciscoadmittedthattheMindanaoGold
StarDailycausedthepublicationofthearticle.Hedisclosedthatrespondent,inapressconference,stated
that the crime of murder is nonbailable. When asked by the trial court why he printed such lies, Mr.
[4]
Francisco answered that his only source was respondent. Mr. Francisco clarified that in the statement
allegingthatJudgeBuyserinhibitedhimselffromthecaseforanunclearreason,thephraseforanunclear
[5]
reason,wasaddedbythenewspapersExecutiveEditorHerbyS.Gomez.

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
refusaltoanswer,thetrialcourtdeclaredhimincontemptofcourtpursuanttoSec.3,Rule71oftheRules
[6]
ofCourt. TheCourtsOrderdatedSeptember30,2003reads:

ORDER
Mr.MarkFranciscoforpublishingthisarticlewhichisalieclothedinhalftruthtogiveitasemblance
oftruthisherebyorderedtopayafineofP10,000.ProsecutorBagabuyo,forobstinatelyrefusingtoexplain
whyheshouldnotbecitedforcontemptandadmittingthatthearticlepublishedintheMindanaoGoldStar
DailyonAugust18,2003andquotedintheOrderofthisCourtdatedAugust21,2003whichiscontemptuous
wascausedbyhimtobepublished,isherebyadjudgedtohavecommittedindirectcontemptofCourtpursuant
toSection3ofRule71oftheRulesofCourtandheisherebyorderedtosufferthepenaltyof30daysinjail.
The BJMP is hereby ordered to arrest Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo if he does not put up a bond of
P100,000.00.

[7]
SOORDERD.

Respondentpostedtherequiredbondandwasreleasedfromthecustodyofthelaw.Heappealedthe
indirectcontemptordertotheCA.

Despitethecitationofindirectcontempt,respondentpresentedhimselftothemediaforinterviewsin
RadioStationDXKS,andagainattackedtheintegrityofJudgeTanandthetrialcourtsdispositioninthe
proceedingsofCrim.CaseNo.5144.

In an Order dated October 20, 2003, the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, required respondent to
explainandtoshowcausewithinfivedaysfromreceiptthereofwhyheshouldnotbeheldincontemptfor
hismediainterviewsthatdegradedthecourtandthepresidingjudge,andwhyheshouldnotbesuspended
from the practice of law for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 11.05 of
[8] [9]
Canon11 andRule13.02ofCanon13.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 3/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006

In the Order, the trial court stated that respondent was interviewed by Jun Clergio, and that the
interviewwasrepeatedlyairedonSeptember30,2003andinhisnewsprogrambetween6:00and8:00a.m.
onOctober1,2003.HewasalsointerviewedbyTonyConsingonOctober1and2,2003,between8:00and
9:00a.m.inhisradioprogram.Inthoseradiointerviews,respondentallegedlycalledJudgeTanajudgewho
doesnotknowthelaw,aliar,andadictatorwhodoesnotaccorddueprocesstothepeople.

ThehearingforthesecondcontemptchargewassetonDecember4,2003.

OnNovember,20,2003,respondentfiledanUrgentMotionforExtensionofTimetoFileAnswerto
Contemptallegingthathewassaddledwithworkofequalimportanceandneededampletimetoanswerthe
same.Healsoprayedforabillofparticularsinordertoproperlyprepareforhisdefense.

In an Order dated November 20, 2003, the trial court denied the motion. It stated that a bill of
particulars is not applicable in contempt proceedings, and that respondents actions and statements are
detailedintheOrderofOctober20,2003.

OnthescheduledhearingofDecember4,2003respondentneitherappearedincourtnorinformedthe
courtofhisabsence.ThetrialcourtissuedanOrderdatedDecember4,2003cancellingthehearingtogive
ProsecutorBagabuyoallthechancesheasksfor,andorderedhimtoappearonJanuary12,2004toexplain
inwritingororallywhyheshouldnotbecitedincontemptofcourtpursuanttothefactsstatedintheOrder
datedOctober20,2003.However,respondentdidnotappearinthescheduledhearingofJanuary12,2004.

OnJanuary15,2004,thetrialcourtreceivedrespondentsAnswerdatedJanuary8,2004.Respondent
deniedthechargethathesoughttobeinterviewedbyradiostationDXKS.He, however, stated that right
afterthehearingofSeptember30,2003,hewasapproachedbysomeonewhoaskedhimtocommentonthe

Orderissuedinopencourt,andthathiscommentdoesnotfallwithintheconceptofindirectcontemptof
court. He also admitted that he was interviewed by his friend, Tony Consing, at the latters instance. He
justified his response during the interview as a simple exercise of his constitutional right of freedom of
speechandthatitwasnotmeanttooffendormalign,andwaswithoutmalice.

OnFebruary8,2004,thetrialcourtissuedanOrder,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE, finding preponderant evidence that Prosecutor Bagabuyo has grossly violated the
Canonsofthelegalprofessionand[is]guiltyofgraveprofessionalmisconduct,renderinghimunfittocontinue
to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, he is hereby
SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflaw.

Likewise,heisalsofoundguiltyofindirectcontemptofcourt,forwhichheisherebyorderedtosuffer
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
moreseverely.

LetcopiesoftherelevantrecordsbeimmediatelyforwardedtotheSupremeCourtforautomaticreview
[10]
andforfurtherdeterminationofgroundsfor[the]disbarmentofProsecutorRogelioZ.Bagabuyo.

ThetrialcourtfoundrespondentsdenialstobelameasthetapeofhisinterviewonOctober2,2003,
dulytranscribed,showeddisrespectofthecourtanditsofficers,thus:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 4/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006
dulytranscribed,showeddisrespectofthecourtanditsofficers,thus:

TONYCONSING:Fiscal,nanglabayangmgaoras,nanglabayanggamayngpanahonangsamadsaimong
kasingkasingnagpabilinpabani.O ingnon nato duna na bay pagbago sa imong
hunahunakaron?

(Fiscal,afterthelapseoftime,areyoustillhurt?Orhaveyounotchangedyourmindyet?)

BAGABUYO:Angakonghunahunakonadunamanugalingpagbagoangpagsiguro,angmgaHuwesnga
dilimahibalosabalaodtangtangonpagkaabogado,maokana.

(If my mind has changed at all, it is that I ensure that all judges who are ignorant of the law should be
disbarred.Thatsit.)

xxx

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 bagong jurisprudence ug sa atong
balaodaronsapagsigurogayodngainigsangatunyanakosakasongadisbarment
niining di mahibalo nga Huwes, sigurado gayod ako nga katangtangan siya sa
lisensiya....AngkiningaHuwesngadilimahibalosabalaod,pagatangtangonna,
dili lamang sa pagkaHuwes kon dili sa pagkaabogado. Tanawa ra gyod kining
iyanggibuhatngaOrder,Ton,angiyangpagkabakakon....

(Thatstrue,Ton,andthisconvictionIhavenowaboutjudgeswhoareignorantofthelawismadefirmerby
time.Istudyeveryday.I read new jurisprudence and the law to insure that when I
filethedisbarmentcaseagainstthisJudgewhodoesnotknowhislaw,Iamcertain
thatheloseshislicense....Thisjudgewhoisignorantofthelawshouldnotonlybe
removedasajudgebutshouldalsobedisbarred.JusttakealookathisOrder,Ton,
andseewhataliarheis....)

xxx

BAGABUYO:Yes,nagingonangiyangOrder....Nganonganakaingonakongabakakonkini,nagingon
ngakinikonongordergiveninopencourt,ang kalooy sa dios, ang iyang order sa
KortewalasiyamagingonugkantidadngaP100,000.00ngabailbond....

(Yes,hisOrdersaidthat....WhydidIsaythatheisaliar?ItstatesthatthisOrderwasgiveninopencourt,
andinGodsmercy,hedidnotstatetheamountofP100,000.00asbailbond....)

BAGABUYO:Kaydilimanlagimahibalosabalaod,ako
siyang guiingnan, Your Honor, I have the right to appeal. Mibalik dayon, ug miingon siya, BJMP arrest
Bagabuyo.

(Becausehedoesnotknowthelaw,Isaid,YourHonor,Ihavetherighttoappeal.
Thenhecamebackandsaid,BJMP,arrestBagabuyo.)

xxx

BAGABUYO:...P100,000.00angiyangguipapiyansa.
Naunsana?Dinhimakitanimoangiyangpagkagrossignoranceofthelaw....

(HeimposedabailofP100,000.00.Howcome?Thisiswhereyouwillseehisgrossignoranceofthelaw....)

xxx

TONYCONSING:Sokaron,unsayplanonimokaron?

(Sowhatisyourplannow?)

BAGABUYO:Sumalasaakongguiingonmoundanglangakokonmatangtangnasiyasapagkaabogado...
.

(AsIhavesaid,Iwillonlystopifheisalreadydisbarred....)

xxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 5/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006
xxx

BAGABUYO : Nasuko siya niini kay hambugero kuno, pero angayan niyang hibawan nga ang trabajo sa
Huwesdiliangpagtanawkonangtawohambugero....Ugangakonggisultimao
lamangangbalaodngasiyainfactatthattimeIsaidheisnotconversantofthelaw,
withregardstothecaseofmurder....

(HegotangrybecauseIwasallegedlybraggingbutheshouldknowthatitisnotforajudgetodetermineifa
personisabraggart....AndwhatIsaidwasbasedonthelaw.Infact,atthattime,I
saidheisnotconversantofthelaw,withregardstothecaseofmurder....)

xxx

BAGABUYO:Ah,misitdownsabako,contemptrabakadto....Maokana,perounsamayiyangkatuyoan
ang iyang katuyoan nga ipaadto ako didto kay didto, iya akong pakauwawan kay
iyakongsikopon,iyakongipapriso,perokaydimanlagimahibalosabalaod,ang
iyangguiorderanBJMP,intawonpordiosporSanto,Mr.Tan,pagbasaintawonug
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
everyoneisentitledtodueprocessoflawyoudidnotaccordmedueprocessoflaw.
...

(Isatdown....Thatsit.Butwhatwashispurpose?Hemademecomeinordertohumiliatemebecausehe
wantedmearrested,hewantedmeimprisoned,butbecauseheisignorantofthelaw,
he ordered the BMJP. For Gods sake, Mr. Tan, whats wrong with you, Mr. Tan?
Pleasereadthelaw.Whatisyourthinking?Thatwhenyouareajudge,youarealso
adictator?No way, no sir, ours is a democratic country where all and everyone is
entitledtodueprocessoflawyoudidnotaccordmedueprocessoflaw....)

TONYCONSING:Somopasakakangdisbarment,malaumonkitangamaaksiyonankini,withallthisproblem
saKorteSuprema.

(Soyouarefilingadisbarmentcase?WehopethatthisbegivenactionwithalltheproblemsintheSupreme
Court.)

BAGABUYO:Diliakomabalakanianakayusakatruckangakongjurisprudence,ngaangmgaHuwesnga
dimahibalosabalaodpagatangtangongayodsailangpagkaHuwes....Apanunsa
man intawon ang balaod ang iyang gibasa niini nadunggan ko nga kini kuno siya
madjongero,maobitawna,madjongangiyangguitunan?

(IamnotworriedbecauseIhaveatruckloadofjurisprudencethatjudgeswhoareignorantofthelawmustbe
removed from the Bench. But what law has he been reading? I heard that he is a
[11]
mahjongaficionado(mahjongero)andthatiswhyheisstudyingmahjong.




Thetrialcourtconcludedthatrespondent,asamemberofthebarandanofficerofthecourt,isduty
boundtoupholdthedignityandauthorityofthecourt,andshouldnotpromotedistrustintheadministration
ofjustice.

ThetrialcourtstatedthatitisempoweredtosuspendrespondentfromthepracticeoflawunderSec.
[12] [13]
28,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt foranyofthecausesmentionedinSec.27 of the same Rule.
Respondent was given the opportunity to be heard, but he opted to be silent. Thus, it held that the
requirementofdueprocesshasbeendulysatisfied.

[14] [15]
InaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSec.29, Rule138andSec.9, Rule139oftheRulesof
Court,theRTCofSurigaoCity,Branch29,transmittedtotheOfficeoftheBarConfidanttheStatementof
Facts of respondents suspension from the practice of law, dated July 14, 2005, together with the order of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 6/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006
Facts of respondents suspension from the practice of law, dated July 14, 2005, together with the order of
suspensionandotherrelevantdocuments.

In its Report dated January 4, 2006, the Office of the Bar Confidant found that the article in the
August18,2003issueoftheMindanaoGoldStarDaily,whichmalignedtheintegrityandindependenceof
the court and its officers, and respondents criticism of the trial courts Order dated November 12, 2002,
which was aired in radio station DXKS, both in connection with Crim. Case No. 5144, constitute grave
violationofoathofofficebyrespondent.Itstatedthattherequirementofdueprocesswascompliedwith
whenrespondentwasgivenanopportunitytobeheard,butrespondentchosetoremainsilent.

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the implementation of the trial courts order of
suspensiondatedFebruary8,2004,andthatrespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforoneyear,
withasternwarningthattherepetitionofasimilaroffensewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

TheCourtapprovestherecommendationoftheOfficeoftheBarConfidant.Ithasbeenreiteratedin
[16]
Gonzagav.Villanueva,Jr. that:
Alawyermaybedisbarredorsuspendedforanyviolationofhisoath,apatentdisregardofhisduties,
oranodiousdeportmentunbecominganattorney.AmongthegroundsenumeratedinSection27,Rule138of
theRulesofCourtaredeceitmalpracticegrossmisconductinofficegrosslyimmoralconductconvictionof
acrimeinvolvingmoralturpitudeanyviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtotakebeforeadmissionto
thepracticeoflawwillfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorderofasuperiorcourtcorruptorwillfulappearance
asanattorneyforapartytoacasewithoutauthoritytodoso.Thegroundsarenotpreclusiveinnatureevenas
they are broad enough as to cover practically any kind of impropriety that a lawyer does or commits in his
professionalcareerorinhisprivatelife.Alawyermustatnotimebewantinginprobityandmoralfiberwhich
are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar, but are likewise essential demands for his
continuedmembershiptherein.



Lawyersarelicensedofficersofthecourtswhoareempoweredtoappear,prosecuteanddefendand
[17]
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
[18]
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon11oftheCodeofProfessional
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
shallsubmitgrievancesagainstajudgetotheproperauthoritiesonly.

Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press
conferencewherehemadestatementsagainsttheOrderdatedNovember12,2002allowingtheaccusedin
Crim.CaseNo.5144tobereleasedonbail.

RespondentalsoviolatedCanon11whenheindirectlystatedthatJudgeTanwasdisplayingjudicial
arroganceinthearticleentitled,SeniorprosecutorlambastsSurigaojudgeforallowingmurdersuspectto
bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents
statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also
violatedRule13.02ofCanon13,whichstatesthatalawyershallnotmakepublicstatementsinthemedia
regardingapendingcasetendingtoarousepublicopinionfororagainstaparty.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 7/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006

InregardtotheradiointerviewgiventoTonyConsing,respondentviolatedRule11.05ofCanon11
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityfornotresortingtotheproperauthoritiesonlyforredressofhis
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
studyingmahjonginsteadofstudyingthelaw,andthathewasaliar.

Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer
accordingtothebestof[his]knowledgeanddiscretionwithallgoodfidelityaswelltothecourtsasto[his]

clients.

As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of
[19]
observingandmaintainingtherespectduetothecourtsandtojudicialofficers.Montecillov.Gica held:

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the
court,itishisdutytoupholdthedignityandauthorityofthecourttowhichheowesfidelity,accordingtothe
oathhehastaken.Respectforthecourtsguaranteesthestabilityofourdemocraticinstitutionswhich,without
suchrespect,wouldberestingonaveryshakyfoundation.


TheCourtisnotagainstlawyersraisinggrievancesagainsterringjudgesbuttherulesclearlyprovide
forthepropervenueandprocedurefordoingso,preciselybecauserespectfortheinstitutionmustalwaysbe
maintained.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating
Rule11.05,Canon11andRule13.02,Canon13oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,andofviolating
theLawyersOath,forwhichheisSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforone(1)yeareffectiveupon
finalityofthisDecision,withaSTERNWARNINGthattherepetitionofasimilaroffenseshallbedealt
withmoreseverely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
respondentspersonalrecordasanattorney,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,theDepartmentofJustice,
andallcourtsinthecountryfortheirinformationandguidance.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.


ADOLFOSAZCUNA
AssociateJustice



WECONCUR:


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 8/10
 3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





CONCHITACARPIOMORALES DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice






PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR. ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

[1]
Sec.4.Bail,amatterofrightexception.Allpersonsincustodyshallbeadmittedtobailasamatterofrightxxx(b)beforeconvictionbythe
RegionalTrialCourtofanoffensenotpunishablebydeath,reclusionperpetua,orlifeimprisonment.
[2]
Rollo,p.45.
[3]
Id.at101.
[4]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 9/10
3/12/2017 A.C.No.7006
[4]
Id.at115.
[5]
Id.at114115.
[6]
Sec.3.Indirectcontempttobepunishedafterchargeandhearing.After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the
respondenttocommentthereonwithinsuchperiodasmaybefixedbythecourtandtobeheardbyhimselforcounsel,apersonguiltyofany
ofthefollowingactsmaybepunishedforindirectcontempt:
xxx
(d)Anyimproperconducttending,directlyorindirectly,toimpede,obstruct,ordegradetheadministrationofjustice.
[7]
Rollo,p.126.
[8]
CANON11ALAWYERSHALLOBSERVEANDMAINTAINTHERESPECTDUETOTHECOURTSANDTOJUDICIALOFFICERSAND
SHOULDINSISTONSIMILARCONDUCTBYOTHERS
xxx
Rule11.05.AlawyershallsubmitgrievancesagainstaJudgetotheproperauthoritiesonly.

[9]
CANON13ALAWYERSHALLRELYUPONTHEMERITSOFHISCAUSEANDREFRAINFROMANYIMPROPRIETYWHICHTENDS
TOINFLUENCEORGIVESTHEAPPEARANCEOFINFLUENCINGTHECOURT
xxx
Rule13.02.Alawyershallnotmakepublicstatementsinthemediaregardingapendingcasetendingtoarousepublicopinionfororagainstaparty.
[10]
Rollo,pp.153154.
[11]
RTCOrder,February8,2004,Rollo,pp.144147.Emphasissupplied.
[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
suspendanattorneyfrompracticeforanyofthecausesnamedinthelastprecedingsection,andaftersuchsuspensionsuchattorneyshallnot
practicehisprofessionuntilfurtheractionoftheSupremeCourtinthepremises.
[13]
Sec.27.DisbarmentorsuspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourt,groundstherefor.AmemberoftheBarmaybedisbarredorsuspendedfrom
hisofficeasattorneybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpractice,orothergrossmisconductinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralconduct,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
admissiontopractice,orforawillfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorderofasuperiorcourtcorruptorwillfulappearanceasanattorneyfora
partytoacasewithoutauthoritysotodo.Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawforthepurposeofgain,eitherpersonallyorthroughpaid
agentsorbrokers,constitutesmalpractice.
[14]
Sec.29.UponsuspensionbyCourtofAppealsorRegionalTrialCourt,furtherproceedingsinSupremeCourt.Uponsuchsuspension,theCourt
ofAppealsortheRegionalTrialCourtshallforthwithtransmittotheSupremeCourtacertifiedcopyoftheorderofsuspensionandafull
statementofthefactsuponwhichthesamewasbased.Uponthereceiptofsuchcertifiedcopyandstatement,theSupremeCourtshallmake
fullinvestigationofthefactsinvolvedandmakesuchorderrevokingorextendingthesuspension,orremovingtheattorneyfromhisoffice
assuch,asthefactswarrant.
[15]
Sec.9.ProcedureinCourtofAppealsorRegionalTrialCourt.Asfarasmaybeapplicable,theprocedureaboveoutlinedshalllikewisegovern
thefilingandinvestigationofcomplaintsagainstattorneysintheCourtofAppealsorinRegionalTrialCourt.Incaseofsuspensionofthe
respondent, the judge of [the] Regional Trial Court or Justice of the Court of Appeals shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a
certifiedcopyoftheorderofsuspensionandafullstatementofthefactsuponwhich[the]sameisbased.
[16]
Adm.CaseNo.1954,July23,2004,435SCRA1,910.
[17]
Reyesv.Chiong,Jr.,A.C.No.5148,July1,2003,405SCRA212,217.
[18]
Ibid.
[19]
No.L36800,October21,1974,60SCRA234,245.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/7006.htm 10/10