View full case

RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO

FACTS:

This administrative case involves the proceedings in Crim. Case No. 5144 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch 29. Initially assigned to Judge Floripinas C. Buyser of RTC Branch 30, the case dealt with the Demurrer to the Evidence filed by the defense, which was denied by the Judge. Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Senior State Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor, objected to the defense's Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, arguing that murder charges were non-bailable. Due to an alleged insinuation by Bagabuyo that Judge Buyser lacked impartiality, the latter inhibited himself.

The case was then transferred to Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan of RTC Branch 29, who granted the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, setting it at P40,000. Bagabuyo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in October 2003. Instead of pursuing judicial remedies, Bagabuyo published an article in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily criticizing Judge Tan for allowing the murder suspect to be released on bail. Bagabuyo stated that murder was non-bailable unless the prosecution's evidence was weak and announced his intention to appeal Judge Tan's decision and file charges against him.

As a result, Bagabuyo and the writer of the article, Mark Francisco, were ordered by the court to appear and explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for publishing the article containing alleged lies and misrepresentations about the court and Judge Tan. During the hearing, Francisco admitted that the article was based on information from Bagabuyo while the phrase "for an unclear reason" regarding Judge Buyser's inhibition was added by the newspaper's editor. Bagabuyo admitted to organizing the press conference but refused to answer questions about the article's statements, leading to a contempt charge against him.

Respondent Bagabuyo appealed the initial contempt ruling to the Court of Appeals. Despite being cited for contempt, Bagabuyo continued to give interviews attacking the judge and the trial court's integrity. In response, the trial court issued an order requiring Bagabuyo to explain why he should not be held in contempt for his media interviews and why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bagabuyo was accused of calling the judge a person who does not know the law, a liar, and a dictator who does not accord due process.

The trial court scheduled a hearing for the second contempt charge, but Bagabuyo filed a motion for an extension of time and a bill of particulars for his defense, which were denied. Bagabuyo failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and was ordered to appear on another date. He submitted his answer, denying some charges and justifying his actions as an exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of speech without malice. Subsequently, the trial court issued an order suspending Bagabuyo from the practice of law, sentencing him to 90 days imprisonment, and imposing a fine of P30,000 for indirect contempt of court. The case was set to be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent violated the Canons of the legal profession and is guilty of grave professional misconduct for his statements during a radio interview.

  2. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of indirect contempt for his statements during a radio interview.

  3. Whether the respondent violated his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court by maligning the integrity and independence of the court and its officers.

  4. Whether the respondent violated his duty to observe and maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers.

  5. Whether the respondent violated his duty to refrain from making public statements regarding pending cases that could influence public opinion.

  6. Whether the respondent violated Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  7. Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent violated the Canons of the legal profession and is guilty of grave professional misconduct for his statements during a radio interview. He showed disrespect for the court and its officers and even expressed his desire to disbar judges who are ignorant of the law.

  2. Yes, the respondent is guilty of indirect contempt for his statements during a radio interview. The trial court ordered him to serve imprisonment for ninety (90) days and pay a fine of P30,000.00. Future acts of contempt will also be dealt with more severely.

  3. Yes, the respondent violated his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The trial court found that the article published and the statements made by the respondent constitute a grave violation of his oath of office.

  4. Yes, the respondent violated his duty to observe and maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers. The respondent's statements in the article and during a radio interview showed disrespect towards the judge involved, calling him ignorant of the law, a mahjong aficionado, and a liar.

  5. Yes, the respondent violated his duty to refrain from making public statements regarding pending cases. The statements made by the respondent in the media regarding a pending case were in violation of the rule prohibiting lawyers from making public statements that could influence public opinion.

  6. The Court finds the respondent guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. As a sanctions, the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, with a stern warning for a more severe punishment in case of a repeat offense.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Freedom of speech is a constitutional right but it must be exercised responsibly and should not be used to offend or malign others.

  • Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting their status as officers of the court and are bound by the Canons of the legal profession.

  • Disrespect of the court and its officers, as well as making false statements and accusations, can be considered as grave professional misconduct.

  • Contempt of court can be committed through words or conduct that tend to disrespect, degrade, or belittle the authority or dignity of the court.

  • The penalty for indirect contempt can include imprisonment and fines.

  • A lawyer may be disciplined, including disbarment or suspension, for any violation of his oath, a disregard of his duties, or unbecoming conduct.

  • Lawyers are required to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and judicial officers and are mandated to maintain respect towards them.

  • Lawyers should not make public statements in the media regarding pending cases that may influence public opinion.

  • Lawyers have an obligation to submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities rather than resorting to public statements or media interviews.

  • Lawyers are duty-bound to conduct themselves with all good fidelity to the courts and their clients, as stated in the Lawyer's Oath.

  • Lawyers have a duty to maintain a respectful attitude towards the courts and judicial officers.

  • Grievances against erring judges should be raised in the proper venue and procedure to maintain respect for the institution of the court.