[ GR No. 133090, Jan 19, 2001 ]REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING v. DOLORES S. ESPAÑOL
FACTS:
The incident subject of the petition occurred during a
hearing 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 RTC of Cavite, Branch 90.
During the hearing of this case, plaintiffs and counsel were
present together with one (1) operating a video camera who was taking pictures
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 cause the appearance of the cameraman to take pictures,
however, he admitted that they came from a function, and that was the reason
why the said cameraman was in tow with him and the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding
the flimsy explanation given, the counsel sent out the cameraman after the
Court took exception to the fact that although the proceedings are open to the
public and that it being a court of record, and since its permission was not
sought, such situation was an abuse of discretion of the Court.
When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion
manifested that he needed the services of counsel and right then and there
appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to represent him, the case was allowed to be
called again. On the 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, considering that the Motion has so many ramifications
and the issues are complicated.
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be
allowed to mark his documentary evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he
was already perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga has not yet finished
with his manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly
procedure, the Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the
Court for an orderly proceeding.
While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up
anytime he felt like doing so. Thus, the Court declared him out of order, at
which point, Atty. Bugaring flared up and uttered words insulting the Court;
such as: `that he knows better than the latter as he has won all his cases of
certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he knows better the Rules of Court;
that he was going to move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for
allegedly being antagonistic to his client,' and other invectives were hurled
to the discredit of the Court.
Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct
contempt and order the Court's sheriff to arrest and place him under detention.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Bugaring should be cited for contempt of court
RULING:
Petitioner insists that a careful examination of the transcript
of stenographic notes of the subject proceedings would reveal that the contempt
order issued by respondent judge had no factual and legal basis. It would also
show that he was polite and respectful towards the court as he always addressed
the court with the phrase "your honor please."
We disagree.
We agree with the statement of the Court of Appeals that
petitioner's alleged deference to the trial court in consistently addressing
the respondent judge as "your Honor please" throughout the
proceedings is belied by his behavior therein:
1.
the veiled threat to file a petition for
certiorari against the trial court is
contrary to Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which mandates that "a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts".
2.
the hurled uncalled for accusation that the
respondent judge was partial in favor of the other party is against Rule 11.04,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers from
attributing to a judge "motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case".
3.
behaving without due regard to the trial court's
order to maintain order in the proceedings is in utter disregard to Canon 1 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics which makes it a lawyer's duty to
"maintain towards the courts (1) respectful attitude" in order to
maintain its importance in the administration of justice, and Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to "observe and
maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others".
4.
behaving without due regard or deference to his
fellow counsel who at the time he was making representations in behalf of the
other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not allowed to
further put a word in edgewise is violative of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
which obliges a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and
5.
the refusal of the petitioner to allow the
Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, through counsel, to exercise his
right to be heard is against Section 1 of Article III, 1997 Constitution on the
right to due process of law, Canon 18 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
which mandates a lawyer to always treat an adverse witness "with fairness
and due consideration," and Canon 12 of Code of Professional
Responsibility which insists on a lawyer to "exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice."
The Court cannot therefore help but notice the sarcasm in
the petitioner's use of the phrase "your honor please." For, after using
said phrase he manifested utter disrespect to the court in his subsequent
utterances. Surely this behavior from an officer of the Court cannot and should
not be countenanced, if proper decorum is to be observed and maintained during
court proceedings.
Indeed, the conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his
documentary evidence marked to the extent of interrupting the opposing counsel
and the court showed disrespect to said counsel and the court, was defiant of
the court's system for an orderly proceeding, and obstructed the administration
of justice. Hence, petitioner cannot claim that there was irregularity in the
actuation of respondent judge in issuing the contempt order inside her chamber
without giving the petitioner the opportunity to defend himself or make an
immediate reconsideration.
Petitioner argued that while it might appear that he was
carried by his emotions in espousing the case of his client - by persisting to
have his documentary evidence marked despite the respondent judge's contrary
order - he did so in the honest belief that he was bound to protect the
interest of his client to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.
Comments
Post a Comment