DISBARMENT

IN RE: DISBARMENT OF RODOLFO PAJO

[A.M. No. 2410] [October 23, 1983]

Facts:
 Respondents Atty. Rodolfo Pajo and Clodualdo Origines were charged with falsification of public
documents (Article 172, par. 1, Revised Penal Code) for executing a deed of sale of a parcel of land
by a vendor who was already deceased for eight (8) years. It was respondent Pajo who prepared
and notarized the falsified deed of sale. They were eventually found guilty— with Origines
sentenced as a principal and Pajo as an accomplice.
 As the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, the conviction of Origines was merely affirmed
without any modification. However, the appellate court found Pajo guilty as a co-principal
through conspiracy, instead of as an accomplice, thereby increasing the corresponding penalties.
 Aggrieved, respondent Pajo filed for a petition for review on certiorari of the appellate decision
before the Supreme Court. This petition was denied by the Court’s First Division on two grounds:
(1) Petition has no statement of material dates to determine the timeliness of the filing
(2) Assuming that material dates were present, the petition is still unmeritorious
The case was then referred to the Court en banc for the disbarment of respondent Pajo.
 During the disbarment proceedings, respondent was required to “show cause” on why he should
not be disbarred by reason of final judgement.

Issue:
WON respondent Rodolfo Pajo should be disbarred from the practice of law

Held:
Respondent Pajo has shown no cause why he should not be disbarred by reason of final
judgement and he should be disbarred from the practice of law and his have his name stricken off from the
Roll of Attorneys.
Section 127, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A
member of the bar may be removed 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, or for
corruptly or wilfully appearing, as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
do. xxx
In the disbarment case, the Court is no longer called upon to review the judgment of conviction
which has now become final. The crime of falsification of public document is clearly contrary to justice,
honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude. The respondent's acts of taking
advantage of his office as attorney to prepare a deed of sale purportedly by one who had been eight
years dead amounted to deceit, malpractice, and misconduct in office as a lawyer. The case comes clearly
under the grounds given in Section 27 of Rule 138. Disbarment follows as a consequence of the
conviction for the crime.
SUSPENSION

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR

[A.C. No. 7006] [October 9, 2007]

Facts:
 The present administrative case had its genesis in the criminal case of People v. Luis Bucalon
Plaza. In that case, Judge Floripinas Buyser, of Surigao City RTC Branch 30, denied the Demurrer
to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the
crime of homicide and not of murder. Consequently, a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond was
filed by the defense. Then senior state prosecutor, respondent Rogelio Bagabuyo objected
thereto mainly on the ground that the original crime of murder, punishable by reclusion perpetua,
is not subject to bail under Sec. 14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court.
 Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of “harsh insinuations” of
respondent Bagabuyo that he “lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate”. The case was
then transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of Surigao City presided by Judge Manuel Tan who
favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent moved for
reconsideration but was denied for lack of merit. Aggrieved, respondent raised the case to the
Court of Appeals.
 Instead of availing himself of judicial remedies, respondent caused a publication of an article
lambasting Judge Tan for allowing a murder suspect to go out on bail and displaying “judicial
arrogance”. Bagabuyo also claimed that he is not afraid to be cited in contempt by Judge Tan.
Respondent Bagabuyo was then charged and found guilty for indirect contempt of court.
 The RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29 transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant the Statement
of Facts and the Order of respondent’s suspension from the practice of law. The Office of the Bar
Confidant recommended the trial court’s order.

Issue:
WON respondent Rogelio Bagabuyo should be suspended from the practice of law

Held:
The Court approved the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant. The Court said that
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.
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. 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."
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.