In Re Bagabuyo

IN RE: BAGABUYO
ADM. CASE NO. 7006 OCTOBER 9, 2007
TOPIC: Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts – Duty to Refrain from Impropriety
FACTS:
This administrative case stemmed from the events of the proceedings in Crim. Case No.
5144, entitled People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza, heard before the sala of Presiding Judge
Jose Manuel P. Tan, who favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond.
Instead of availing judicial remedies only, Atty. Rogelio Bagabuyo, former Senior State
Prosecutor caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail in the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily entitled “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for
allowing murder suspect to bail out.” RTC then directed Bagabuyo and the writer of the
article, Mark Francisco to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of
court for the publication of the article which degraded the court and its presiding judge
with its lies and misrepresentations. Bagabuyo refused to explain, so the RTC held him
in contempt of court. He posted bond, was released and appealed the indirect contempt
order to the CA.
Meanwhile, he presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS,
and again attacked the integrity of Judge Tan calling him a judge who does not know
the law, a liar, and a mahjong aficionado. RTC then required Bagabuyo to explain and
to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his media interviews and why
he should not be suspended from the practice of law. In his answer, Bagabuyo denied
that he sought to be interviewed but that he was only asked to comment on the Order.
He also argued that his response was a simple exercise of his constitutional right to
freedom of speech, and was not meant to offend or malign anyone.
RTC issued an order finding Bagabuyo to have grossly violated the Canons of the legal
profession, guilty of grave professional misconduct, and guilty of indirect contempt of
court. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) found that the article in the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily and Bagabuyo’s responses in the interviews constitute grave violation of oath
of office. OBC recommended one (1) year suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo is guilty of grave misconduct
RULING: Yes. Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and
Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of violating the
Lawyer’s Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.
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.”
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of
a press conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12,
2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was
displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao
judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003
issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent’s statements in the article, which
were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule
13.02 of Canon 13, which states that “a lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.”
In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05
of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper
authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also
violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that
Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying
mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
Respondent also violated the Lawyer’s Oath, as he has sworn to “conduct [himself] as a
lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to [his] clients.”

In Re Bagabuyo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Bagabuyo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Bagabuyo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN RE: BAGABUYO

ADM. CASE NO. 7006 OCTOBER 9, 2007

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo is guilty of grave misconduct

You might also like