FACTS:

The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing held on December 5, 1996 of Civil Case No. 1266-96 entitled "Royal Becthel Builders, Inc. vs. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et al.", for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title, Specific Performance and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order in the sala of respondent judge Dolores S. Español of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite. The trial court had previously issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to annotate a notice of lis pendens on certain certificates of title. The defendants filed a motion to cancel the lis pendens, which was granted by the court. Petitioner, the newly appointed counsel for Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc., filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for contempt of court. During the hearing of the motion for contempt, petitioner inquired if the Register of Deeds was properly notified for the hearing. The Deputy Register of Deeds stated that he was not informed and that he received the subpoena that morning. Petitioner and the court discussed the issue of video recording of the proceedings, with the court stating that permission should have been secured. The Deputy Register of Deeds stated that he had not received any motion regarding the contempt proceedings. Petitioner clarified that he was still in the prosecution stage of the proceedings.

This case involves a motion for contempt of court filed against Atty. Diosdado Concepcion, the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite. During the proceedings, Atty. Concepcion requested the assistance of a fiscal or counsel for the Register of Deeds. The court allowed the appointment of a private counsel instead. Atty. Barzaga was appointed as the privately hired counsel for the Register of Deeds. Atty. Bugaring, the counsel for the plaintiff, requested to mark documentary exhibits but was instructed to wait for Atty. Barzaga to review the records. After reviewing the records, Atty. Barzaga pointed out that a letter was sent by Atty. Bugaring requesting the annotation of a lis pendens, which showed that it was already entered in the book of primary entry. Atty. Barzaga also mentioned that a court order had already been issued, directing the cancellation of the lis pendens. Atty. Bugaring requested to proceed and mark their documentary evidence, but the court instructed him to wait for Atty. Barzaga to finish and for further directions from the court. Atty. Barzaga then requested for a period of ten days to submit a formal written opposition. The court noted that there was a previous manifestation regarding the refusal of the Register of Deeds to annotate the lis pendens due to a pending subdivision plan. The court asked for enlightenment on this matter and instructed Atty. Barzaga to properly address it in the manifestation. The court stated that after the submission of the comment, the plaintiff's counsel would have equal time to submit a reply. Atty. Bugaring insisted on marking their documentary evidence, but the court insisted on waiting for the comment before proceeding with the evidence.

The case involves a contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Atty. Bugaring, argued that the respondent had been furnished with a copy of the motion for contempt and should have filed their response in due time. Atty. Bugaring further stated that they were ready to mark their evidence and present it to the court. However, the court declared Atty. Bugaring out of order, leading to a defense from Atty. Bugaring asserting their knowledge of court procedure.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner's actions during the proceedings constituted direct contempt of court.

2. Whether the petitioner's statements insulting the Court warranted punishment for contempt.

3. Whether Atty. Bugaring was guilty of contempt of court for his disrespectful behavior during the proceedings.

4. Whether the fine and imprisonment imposed on Atty. Bugaring were valid.

5. Whether the petitioner's conduct during the court proceedings violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

6. Whether the petitioner's refusal to allow the Registrar of Deeds to be heard violated the right to due process.

RULING:

1. Yes. The petitioner's actions during the proceedings, including insisting on presenting his evidence before the respondent filed his comment and disregarding the Court's directions, constituted direct contempt of court.

2. Yes. The petitioner's insulting statements towards the Court, made during his argument that he knows better than the Court and that he has won in many certiorari cases, warranted punishment for contempt.

3. Yes, Atty. Bugaring was guilty of contempt of court for his disrespectful behavior during the proceedings. The Court of Appeals found that he was arrogant, impertinent, argumentative, disrespectful, and sarcastic towards the court. His behavior, including insulting and belittling the judge and challenging the court in a disrespectful manner, constituted misbehavior and disrespect towards the court.

4. The fine and imprisonment imposed on Atty. Bugaring were valid. Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court allows for the summary adjudication of direct contempt of court. The punishment for direct contempt can be a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten days for superior courts, or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one day for inferior courts. In this case, Atty. Bugaring was sentenced to three days imprisonment and a fine of P3,000.00. However, the Court of Appeals found that the fine exceeded the limit prescribed by the Rules of Court, and thus ordered the excess to be returned to Atty. Bugaring.

5. The Court held that the petitioner's conduct during the court proceedings violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics. The petitioner's disrespectful behavior towards the court, interruption of opposing counsel, and obstruction of the administration of justice were deemed as contempt of court. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, and direct contempt committed in the presence of a court can be punished summarily without a hearing.

6. The Court held that the petitioner's refusal to allow the Registrar of Deeds to be heard violated the right to due process. It was against the Constitution's right to due process of law, Canon 18 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer should treat an adverse witness with fairness and due consideration and should assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

PRINCIPLES:

• Court proceedings should be conducted in an orderly manner, following the rules and procedures set by the Court.

• Disregard for the Court's directions and insulting statements towards the Court can constitute direct contempt of court.

• Misbehavior and disrespect towards the court can be grounds for a finding of contempt of court.

• Lawyers are expected to maintain a respectful attitude, observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, and abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts.

• The punishment for direct contempt of court can be a fine or imprisonment depending on the court's jurisdiction and the severity of the contemptuous behavior.

• The court has the power to summarily adjudicate direct contempt of court.

• Lawyers should conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their professional colleagues.

• Lawyers should always treat adverse witnesses with fairness and due consideration.

• Lawyers should exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and the enforcement of judgments.