CANON 13 CASES Elmo Magalona and Kelvin Culajara Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo, former senior state prosecutor, adm case no. !!", October #, $!! A.%. No. !!" &acts: This administra administrative tive case stemmed stemmed from from the events of the Criminal Criminal case case proceeding proceeding originally raed to the sala of Judge Floripinas Floripinas C. Buyser. Buyser. Judge Buyser denied the emurrer to the Evidence of the accused! declaring that the evidence thus presented "y the prosecution #as su$cient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge charge of murder murder.. The counse counsell of the defense defense %led a Motion Motion to %& the amount of Bail Bond. 'espondent 'espondent (tty Baga"uyo! Baga"uyo! then )enior state *rosecutor *rosecutor and the deputi+ed prosecutor of the case! o"jected thereto mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder! punisha"le #ith reclusion perpetua! #as not su"ject of "ail under the 'ules of Court. Judge Buser inhi"ited himself from further trying the case "ecause of the harsh insinuation of )enior *rosecutor 'ogelio Baga"uyo that he lac,s the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate! "y allegedly suggesting the %ling of the motion to %& the amount of "ail "ond "y counsel for the accused. 'espon esponden dentt appeal appealed ed to the the C(. C(. -nstea -nstead d of availing availing himself himself only of judici judicial al remedies remedies!! respond respondent ent caused caused the pu"lica pu"lication tion of an article article regard regarding ing the rder rder granting to the accused in the issue of the Mindanao /old )tar aily. The article! entitled )enior prosecutor lam"ast )urigao judge for allo#ing murder suspect to "ail out. The 'TC 'TC of )urigao City directed respondent respondent and the #riter of the article to appear in court to e&plain #hy they should not "e cited for indirect contempt of court for the pu"lication of the article #hich degrade the court and its presiding judge #ith its lies and misrepresentation. 'espon esponden dentt admit admitted ted that that he caused caused the holdin holding g of the press press confer conferenc ence! e! "ut refused to ans#er #hether he made the statement in the article until after he shall have %led a motion to dismiss. dismiss. For For his refusal refusal to ans#er! the trial court court declared declared him in contempt of court pursuant to the 'ules of Court.
'ssue0 12 *rosecutor *rosecutor Baga"uyo violated violated the canons and his his oath as a la#yer3 Ru(ing0 4E). 5a#yers are licensed o$cers of the courts #ho are empo#ered to appear! prosecute and defend6 and upon #hom peculiar duties! responsi"ilities and lia"ilities are devolved "y la# as a conse7uence. Mem"ership in the "ar imposes upon them certain o"ligations. The court held that he violated 'ule 89.:; of Canon 89! #hich states states that that a la#yer la#yer shall shall not ma,e ma,e pu"li pu"lic c statem statement ents s in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse pu"lic opinion for or against a party. -n regard to the radio intervie# given to Tony Consing! respondent violated 'ule 88.:< of Canon 88 of the Code of *rofessional 'esponsi"ility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. 'espondent also violated Canon 88 for his disrespect of the court and its o$cer #hen he stated
that Judge Tan #as ignorant of the la#! that as a mahjong a%cionado! he #as studying mahjong instead of studying the la#! and that he #as a liar. (s a senior state prosecutor and o$cer of the court! respondent should have set the e&le of o"serving and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial o$cers. Montecillo v. /ica held0 -t is the duty of the la#yer to maintain to#ards the courts a respectful attitude. (s an o$cer of the court! it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to #hich he o#es %delity! according to the oath he has ta,en. 'espect for the courts guarantees the sta"ility of our democratic institutions #hich! #ithout such respect! #ould "e resting on a very sha,y foundation.
&oodsp)ere, 'nc. *. Atty. %auricio, +r., AC no. 1##, +u(y $$, $!!# &acts: ( certain (l"erto Cordero purportedly "ought from a grocery in =alen+uela City canned goods including a can of C 5iver spread. (s Cordero and his relatives #ere eating "read #ith the C 5iver spread! they found the spread to "e sour and soon discovered a colony of #orms inside the can. This #as complained "efore the BF(. (fter conciliation meetings "et#een Cordero and the petitioner! the Corderos eventually forged a K()>2>(2 see,ing the #ithdra#al of their complaint "efore the BF(. The BF( thus dismissed the complaint. 'espondent! (tty. Mauricio! Jr.! #ho a$&ed his signature to the K()>2>(2 as a #itness! later #rote in one of his articles?columns in a ta"loid that he prepared the document. Complainant %led criminal complaints against respondent and several others for 5i"el and Threatening to *u"lish 5i"el under (rticles 9<9 and 9<@ of the 'evised *enal Code "efore the $ce of the City *rosecutor of Aue+on City and =alen+uela City. The complaints #ere pending at the time of the %ling of the present administrative complaint. espite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status 7uo order restraining?enjoining further pu"lishing! televising and "roadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of C! respondent continued #ith his attac,s against complainant and its products.
'ssue0 1hether or not the respondent violated the Code of *rofessional 'esponsi"ility. Ru(ing0 4E). 'espondent suspended for three 9 years from the practice of la#. The a"ove actuations of respondent are also in violation of 'ule 89.:9 of the Canon of *rofessional 'esponsi"ility #hich reads0 D( la#yer shall not ma,e pu"lic statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse pu"lic opinion for or against a party. For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status 7uo order restraining?enjoining further pu"lishing! televising and "roadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of C! respondent continued #ith his attac,s against complainant and its products. The language employed "y respondent undou"tedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the $ce of the City *rosecutor and all the *rosecutors connected #ith said $ce. 'espondent clearly assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said $ce in handling cases %led "efore it and did not even design to su"mit any evidence to su"stantiate said #ild allegations. The
use "y respondent of the a"ove7uoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 88 and the fundamental Canon 8 also of the Code of *rofessional 'esponsi"ility! #hich mandates la#yers to Duphold the Constitution! o"ey the la#s of the land and promote respect for la# and legal processes. 'espondent de%ed said status 7uo order! despite his respondentGs oath as a mem"er of the legal profession to Do"ey the la#s as #ell as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities. Further! respondent violated Canon H and 'ule H.:8 of the Code of *rofessional 'esponsi"ility #hich mandate! and "y failing to live up to his oath and to comply #ith the e&acting standards of the legal profession! respondent also violated Canon I of the Code of *rofessional 'esponsi"ility! #hich directs a la#yer to Dat all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.
Bautista *. Rebueno, .R. No. -/"11, &ebruary $$, 1#0 &acts: This mandamus proceeding see,s to compel respondent Judge (lfredo ). 'e"ueno of the Court of First -nstance of 2aga City! Branch -=! to continue trying a civil case assigned to his sala! the issue raised "eing that his rder dis7ualifying himself amounted to a grave a"use of discretion "ased as it #as on a ground other than that provided for in the 'ules of Court. To state the proposition is to indicate the #ea,ness of the stand ta,en "y petitioner! the defendant in such civil case for he #ould ignore the second paragraph of 'ule 89I : "A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons, other than those mentioned above. ... . 2ot#ithstanding an opposition %led "y petitioner on the ground that the reason alleged is not one of those provided for "y la# respondent Judge issued an rder dis7ualifying himself and thereafter denied a motion for its reconsideration. The rder in 7uestion reads as follo#s0 This refers to the motion for inhi"ition %led "y the plainti and the opposition thereto "y the defendant. The Court ,no#s from relia"le sources that the defendant has "een dou"ting the actuations of this Court as "iased on the "elief that the *residing Judge is related to the plainti. )imilarly! ho#ever! from relia"le sources the Court also ,no#s that the plainti is dou"ting his actuations "ecause of the defendantLs alleged utterances that he #ill surely #in this case. These circumstances has placed the Court in a very unpleasant and untena"le position! "ecause either #ay he acts in this case! #hether in favor or against the plainti or viceversa! his actuation #ill al#ays "e tainted and "eset #ith dou"t and misgivings #hich is highly detrimental to the good name and integrity of the Court.
'ssue: May the Judge and the la#yer "e held lia"le for violating Canon 89.:8 of the Code of *rofessional 'esponsi"ilty Ru(ing: 4es. Canon 89.:8 states that D( la#yer shall not e&tend e&traordinary attention or hospitality to! nor see, opportunity for cultivating familiarity #ith Judges. The Court ruled that such attitude may su"ject "oth the judge and the la#yer to suspicion. -t is not! ho#ever! incum"ent on a la#yer to refuse professional
employment in a case "ecause it may "e heard "y a judge #ho is his relative! compadre or former colleague. The responsi"ility is on the judge not to sit in a case unless he is "oth free from "ias and from the appearance thereof.
Austria *. %asaue(, .R. No. -$$23", August 31, 1#" &acts: F(CT) (sturia #as the plainti in a civil case involving 9 parcels of land in *angasinan in #hich Judge Masa7uel ruled in his favor. )ometime later the defendant in the civil case hired a ne# la#yer in the person of (tty. )icat! a former associate of Judge Masa7uel #hen he #as still in the practice of la#. (tty. )icat then %led a superdeas "ond to stay the e&ecution of the sheri and a motion for ne# trial! all of #hich #as granted "y Judge Masa7uel. Before the opening of one of the court sessions! (tty Macaraeg! la#yer of (sturia sa# Judge Masa7uel to his cham"er and ver"ally transmitted to him the re7uest that he inhi"it himself on the ground that (tty. )icat #as his associate. The Judge denied the re7uest pointing out that it #as not one of the grounds for dis7uali%cation of a judge as provided in the rules of court. uring the court session! he as,ed (sturia if he had authori+ed (tty. Macaraeg to approach him in his cham"ers and #hether he dou"ts the integrity of the judge to decide fairly and impartially "ecause the la#yer of the defending party #as his associate! (sturia ans#ered them all in the positive stating that he heard rumors that the defendant #as "oasting that he #ould de%nitely #in "ecause of his la#yer. The Judge then declared (sturia in contempt. The Judge considered his actuations oensive! insulting and lac, of respect to the court. e #as ordered to pay <: pesos. ence this appeal. 'ssue: 1hether or not (ustria acted in violation of Canon 89 Ru(ing: 2. 1hile the court consider it improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge in cham"ers and tal, to him a"out a matter related to the case pending in the court of said judge! it is not an act of impropriety #hich tends to inNuence! or gives the appearance of inNuencing the Court to see the judge in his cham"er and re7uested him to dis7ualify himself on the ground #hich the respondent judge might consider just and valid. The circumstances that led the respondent judge to declare the petitioner in direct contempt of court do not indicate any deli"erate design on the part of the petitioner to disrespect respondent judge. The petitioner has not mis"ehaved in court or in the presence of the respondent judge so as to o"struct or interrupt the proceedings. e simply e&pressed his sincere feeling under the circumstances. Certainly! any person is entitled to his opinion a"out a judge! #hether that opinion is Nattering or not. ( judge as a pu"lic servant should not "e so thins,inned or sensitive as to feel hurt or oended if a citi+en e&presses an honest opinion a"out him. 'n Re -oano 42/ 5)i(. 0!1 +u(y $/, 1#3!6 &acts: )ometime ago! the complaint of an attorney against a Judge of First -nstance #as "y resolution of this court referred to the (ttorney/eneral for investigation! report! and recommendation. The )olicitor/eneral #as designated to conduct the
investigation of the charges! and pursuant to said designation! proceeded to the municipality of Capi+! *rovince of Capi+! to ta,e the testimony of certain #itnesses. The investigation #as conducted secretly! as is customary in cases of this character. 2ot#ithstanding! on (pril ;O! 8O9:! El Pueblo! a ne#spaper pu"lished in -loilo and edited "y )everino 5o+ano! printed an account of the investigation #ritten "y (nastacio Auevedo! said to "e an employee in the o$ce of the Judge under investigation. The article purports to give an account of the evidence of the dierent #itnesses. 'egarding this account! the complainant attorney alleges that the facts therein contained are Dfalse! malicious! and untrue and that Dsaid report too, sides #ith the respondent judge . . . and e&pressed an opinion as to the merits of the same! #ith the o"ject undou"tedly! to inNuence the action of the investigator and the pu"lic in general and to o"struct! em"arrass or impede the course of the present investigation. -n the same connection! the (ttorney/eneral states that the ne#spaper report Ddoes not contain a fair and true account of the facts disclosed at the investigation! . . . creating a #rong impression in the mind of the pu"lic and tending to inNuence improperly the action of this court in the said pending matter. >nder the circumstances! the o"servations of the (ttorney/eneral must necessarily "e accepted as true.
'ssue: 1hether or not )everino 5o+ano and (nastacio Auevedo are guilty of contempt of court. 7e(d: 4es. The Court ordered each to pay a nominal sum of t#enty pesos *;: #ithin %fteen 8< days. The rule is #ell esta"lished that the ne#spaper pu"lications tending to impede! o"struct! em"arass! or inNuence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitute criminal contempt #hich is summarily punisha"le "y the courts. The rule is other#ise after the cause is ended. -t is also regarded as an interference #ith the #or, of the courts to pu"lish any matters #hich their policy re7uires should "e ,ept private! as for e&le the secrets of the jury room! or proceedings in camera. The li"erty of the citi+en must "e preserved in all of its completeness. But license or a"use of li"erty of the press and of the citi+en should not "e confused #ith li"erty in its true sense. (s important as is the maintenance of the Judiciary. 'espect for the Judiciary cannot "e had if persons are privileged to scorn a resolution of the court adopted for good purposes! and if such persons are to "e permitted "y su"terranean means of diuse inaccurate accounts of con%dential proceedings to the em"arrassment of the parties and the courts. Eduardo %arte(ino, et a(., *s. +ose A(e8andro, et a(. &acts: Major Eduardo Martelino alias ("dul 5atif Martelino of the (rmed Forces of the *hilippines! and the o$cers and men under him! #ere charged under the court martial proceedings for violation of the (rticles of 1ar as a result of the alleged shooting of some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando training in Corregidor. Martelino assailed the courtmartialGs jurisdiction considering that a complaint for frustrated murder had already "een %led against him. Moreover! Martelino also sought for the dis7uali%cation of the *resident of the general courtmartial! Col. Jose
(lejandro! after the latter admitted that he read ne#spaper stories of the Corregidor incident. Martelino contended that the case had received such an amount of pu"licity in the press and other ne#s media and in fact #as "eing e&ploited for political purposes in connection #ith the presidential election as to imperil his right to a fair trial. The )upreme Court gave due course to MartelinoGs petition and restrained the courtmartial from proceeding #ith the case. Mean#hile! (lejandro and others assert that despite the pu"licity #hich the case had received! no proof has "een presented sho#ing that the courtmartialGs presidentGs fairness and impartiality have "een impaired. (s already stated! the petitioner Martelino challenged the courtmartial president on the ground that ne#spaper accounts of #hat had come to "e referred to as the Corregidor massacre might unduly inNuence the trial of their case. The petitionerLs counsel referred to a ne#s item appearing in the July ;O! 8O@O issue of the Daily irror and cited other ne#s reports to the eect that co$ns are "eing prepared for the *resident of the *hilippines in Jolo! that according to )enator (7uino massacre victims #ere given sea "urial! and that )enator Magsaysay! opposition =ice *resident candidate! had gone to Corregidor and found "ullet shells. -n addition the petitioners cite in this Court a anila !imes editorial of (ugust ;@! 8O@O #hich states that The Ja"idah Pcode name of the training operationsQ issue #as "ound to come up in the course of the election campaign. The opposition could not possi"ly ignore an issue that is heavily loaded against the administration. The petitioners argue that under the circumstances they could not e&pect a just and fair trial and that! in overruling their challenge for cause "ased on this ground! the general courtmartial committed a grave a"use of discretion.
'ssue: 1hether the pu"licity given to the case against the petitioners #as such as to prejudice their right to a fair trial3 7e(d: 2o. -n contrast the spate of pu"licity in this case "efore us did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners "ut rather on the responsi"ility of the /overnment for #hat #as claimed to "e a massacre of Muslim trainees. -f there #as a trial "y ne#spaper at all! it #as not of the petitioners "ut of the /overnment. ("sent here is a sho#ing of failure of the courtmartial to protect the accused from massive pu"licity encouraged "y those connected #ith the conduct of the trial 1" either "y a failure to control the release of information or to remove the trial to another venue or to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial pu"licity shall have su"sided. -ndeed #e cannot say that the trial of the petitioners #as "eing held under circumstances #hich did not permit the o"servance of those imperative decencies of procedure #hich have come to "e identi%ed #ith due process. (t all events! even granting the e&istence of massive and prejudicial pu"licity! since the petitioners here do not contend that the respondents have "een unduly inNuenced "ut simply that they might "e "y the "arrage of pu"licity! #e thin, that the suspension of the courtmartial proceedings has accomplished the purpose sought "y the petitionersL challenge for cause! "y postponing the trial of the petitioner until calmer times have returned. The atmosphere has since "een cleared and the pu"licity surrounding the Corregidor incident has so far a"ated that #e "elieve the trial may no# "e resumed in tran7uility.
Emi(io Strebe( *s. +ose &igueras •
•
•
•
•
)tre"el su"leased part of his lot in )ta. Mesa to )tandard =acuum il Company #ho constructed Mo"ilgas )tation operated "y a partnership Eusta7uio R Co. Then >nder)ecretary of 5a"or Jose Figueras #anted to "uild a drainage through the lots of Figueras and )te"el "y using his social and political inNuence he managed to inNuence (ssistant City Fiscal of Manila Cornelio ). 'uperto to #rite an opinion granting his right. )te"el and his partner *rimo Eusta7uio protested. But the #as seemingly a"andoned "efore the property rights could "e violated That due to personal conNicts his #ifeLs soninla# Manuel ernande+ #as removed form his position )eptem"er 8
'ssue: 1as there violation of Canon 89 due to Jose and 'upertoGs issuance of press statement after the dismissal of the case3 7e(d: 2o. This ne#s item mentions! neither the num"er of the case referred to! nor the names of the persons accused therein. Moreover! it merely contains a criticism of the action ta,en "y the court. The reference! therein imputed to the irector of 5a"or! to the Nagrant violation of the eighthour la"or la# "y the accused! #as a mere reiteration of the theory of the Bureau of 5a"or! #hich the prosecution had adopted "y %ling the information in said case. Being a matter of court record! #hich had "een ta,en up at the hearing held pu"licly! and settled in a decision already promulgated! said theory #as open for pu"lic consumption! and! hence! an allusion thereto or statement thereof! in order to justify said criticism! is not actiona"le. (gain! said allusion #as not made "y defendant 'uperto! #ho! the ne#s item sho#s! said nothing against the plainti. -t is apparent! therefore! that as a #hole! the allegations made in support of the second cause of action do not esta"lish a right of action against him. Moreover! there is a"solutely no allegation under said cause of action connecting defendant Figueras #ith the statement already referred to or rendering him lia"le therefor.
9e Bumang(ag *s. Bumang(ag Este"an T. Bumanglad! the respondent! #as found "y the Court in its decision of )eptem"er ;S! 8OI9 guilty of gross immoral conduct and ordered his suspension from the practice of la# for a period of t#o ; years6 'espondent %led several motions for reconsideration "ut the same #ere denied6 (s a result of such denial! the respondent #rote a petition to the *resident of the *hilippines that he Dpromulgates a decree that the order of suspension "y the )upreme Court "e set aside and that your hum"le self "e allo#ed to "ecome an active mem"er of the 2e# )ociety. The respondent alleged in the same petition that he #as deprived of due process of la#6 The Cler, of Court! "y #ay of an indorsement from the (ssistant E&ecutive )ecretary! received a copy of the petition and #as re7uested to Dcomment and?or appropriate action on the su"ject matter6 o#ever! in a su"se7uent letter to the *resident the respondent retracted and ac,no#ledged his non o"servance of protocol of separation of po#ers6 -n the end! the respondent as,ed for an apology from the mem"ers of the onora"le Court.
'ssue 1: 1hether or not respondent may "e disciplined for gross ignorance of the la# and of the Constitution in not o"serving the protocol of separation of po#er "y as,ing the *resident to set aside "y decree the decision of the Court imposing suspension upon the respondent. 7e(d: 'espondent is here"y administered a reprimand for grossignorance of the la# and of the Constitution in having as,ed the *resident to set aside "y decree the CourtLs decision #hich suspended him for t#o years from the practice of la#! #ith #arning that the commission of any transgression in the future of his oath and duties as a mem"er of the "ar #ill "e severely dealt #ith. 'ssue $: 1hether or not a decision duly promulgated "y the )upreme Court may "e set aside "y a *residential ecree 7e(d: )ince respondent has apologi+ed for his "ig mista,e and no# appreciates that under the fundamental principle of separation of po#ers enshrined in "oth the 8O9< and 8OI9 Constitutions! a decision of this Court may not "e set aside "y the *resident! the Court is disposed to vie# his misconduct and?or ignorance #ith li"erality and #ill administer a reprimand #ith #arning of severe action on any future transgressions! considering respondentLs unenvia"le record.
