BUGARING v. ESPAÑOL
•
Canon 8 – Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards Professional Colleagues | January 19, 200 1 | De Leon, Jr. Nature of Case: Review on certiorari Petitioner: Rexie Efren Bugaring Respondent: Hon. Dolores S. Español SUMMARY: During a hearing for the annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title in the case of Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc. v. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et. al., petitioner (here-in counsel for Alvarans), together with his
assistant operating a video camera and taking pictures of the proceedings, manifested that he was ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite in contempt of court the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion. Despite the court asking petitioner to allow the defendant’s counsel to finish his manifestation and respect the court’s decision to give defendant counsel time to write their comment, petitioner kept insisting that he be allowed to mark his evidence and even accused the court of being antagonistic and biased and threatening to file an inhibition to the Hon. Court.
•
•
•
•
•
The court cited petitioner in direct contempt and ordered for him to be put in jail for three days and fined P3,000. Petitioner served his sentence but afterwards filed for a declaration of such order as null and void as it had no legal basis; he also asked for a reimbursement of the fine. CA decision to
uphold RTC judgment was affirmed but P1000 was asked to be returned to petitioner as it was in excess of the ceiling of P2000 under Supreme Court Admin. Circ. No. 22-95. DOCTRINE: The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and
is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice. Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge, and can be punished summarily without hearing. FACTS: (Refer to pages 698-699 of the original case as the facts are summarized clearly and written in order therein) •
During the hearing of the case, plaintiffs and counsel were present together with one operating a video camera who was taking photos of the proceedings of the case while counsel, Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring, was making manifestation to the effect that he was ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in contempt of court) the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite – Diosdado Concepcion
•
The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he did not in fact instruct his assistant to take photos and added that the reason they had with them a camera was because they had just come from a function Counsel sent out his assistant after the Court took exception to the fact that although proceedings are open to the public and it being a court of record, the situation at hand is an abuse of discretion of the court since the court was not asked for permission to do so. When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion manifested that he needed the services of counsel and right then and there appointed Atty. Barzaga to represent him, the case was allowed to be called again On second call, Atty. Bugaring started to insist that he be allowed to mark and present his documentary evidence in spite of the fact that Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written pleading for his client. The court declared him out of order. Atty. Bugaring served 3 days and paid a fine of P3,000 as instructed by the court. After serving his sentence and paying the fine, he filed for a declaration of said order to be null and void. He argued that he was never in contempt of court given that 1) he always addressed it with respect by using the phrase “your Honour please” and 2) he was merely carried away by his emotions in espousing the case of his client. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but ordered the excess P1,000 to be returned.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON RTC erred in citing petitioner in direct contemp t of court – NO a. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice. b.
As regards court’s legal basis for citing contempt of court, and in light of Atty. Bugaring defense of being polite and using the phrase “your Honour please” during the proceedings, the court ruled that his deference to the court in consistently addressing
respondent judge as “your Honour please” is belied by his behaviour therein: i. Veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court (in violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11) ii. The hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent Judge was partial in favour of the other party (in violation of Rule 11.04, Canon 11) "
iii. Behaving without due regard to the trial court’s order to maintain order in the proceedings (in disregard of Canon 1) iv. Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time was making representation in behalf of the other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not allowed to further a word in edgewise (in violation of Canon 8 and Canon 22) v. Refusal of petitioner to allow the Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, through counsel, to exercise his right to be heard (in violation of Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution and Canon 18, and Canon 12) c.
Regarding counsel’s argument of being carried away in an effort to espouse the case of his client, the CA stated that: “A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client’s cause – he should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bound to exert every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice”.
d. The CA however directed the RTC to return P1,000 to Atty. Bugaring as it exceeded the ceiling set by SC Admin. Circ. No. 22-95 of P2,000. RULING: The assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. The RTC is ordered to RETURN to petitioner, Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000 out of the original fine of P3,000.
#
