PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |1
A.C. No. 7199               July 22, 2009
[Formerly CBD 04-1386]
FOODSPHERE, INC., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR., Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a corporation engaged in
the business of meat processing and manufacture and
distribution of canned goods and grocery products under
the brand name "CDO," filed a Verified Complaint1 for
disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty.
Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as "Batas
Mauricio" (respondent), a writer/columnist of tabloids
including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO
and HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI
MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio
program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB,
for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyer’s
oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating
prosecutors.
The facts that spawned the filing of the complaint are as
follows:
On June 22, 2004, a certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero)
purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City
canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. On
June 27, 2004, as Cordero and his relatives were eating
bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to
be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the
can.
Cordero’s wife thus filed a complaint with the Bureau of
Food and Drug Administration (BFAD). Laboratory
examination confirmed the presence of parasites in the
Liver spread.
Pursuant to Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 1993, the BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing
on July 27, 2004 during which the spouses Cordero
demanded ₱150,000 as damages from complainant.
Complainant refused to heed the demand, however, as
being in contravention of company policy and, in any event,
"outrageous."
Complainant instead offered to return actual medical and
incidental expenses incurred by the Corderos as long as
they were supported by receipts, but the offer was turned
down. And the Corderos threatened to bring the matter to
the attention of the media.
Complainant was later required by the BFAD to file its
Answer to the complaint. In the meantime or on August 6,
2004, respondent sent complainant via fax a copy of the
front page of the would-be August 10-16, 2004 issue of the
tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 122 which
complainant found to contain articles maligning, discrediting
and imputing vices and defects to it and its products.
Respondent threatened to publish the articles unless
complainant gave in to the ₱150,000 demand of the
Corderos. Complainant thereupon reiterated its counter-
offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent
turned it down.
Respondent later proposed to settle the matter for ₱50,000,
₱15,000 of which would go to the Corderos and ₱35,000 to
his Batas Foundation. And respondent directed complainant
to place paid advertisements in the tabloids and television
program.
The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN3 seeking
the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The
BFAD thus dismissed the complaint.4 Respondent, who
affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later
wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he
prepared the document.
On August 11, 2004, respondent sent complainant an
Advertising Contract5 asking complainant to advertise in the
tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS for its next 24 weekly issues
at ₱15,000 per issue or a total amount of ₱360,000, and a
Program Profile6 of the television program KAKAMPI MO
ANG BATAS also asking complainant to place spot
advertisements with the following rate cards: (a) spot buy
15-second TVC at ₱4,000; (b) spot buy 30-second TVC at
₱7,700; and (c) season buy [13 episodes, 26 spots] of 30-
second TVC for ₱130,000.
As a sign of goodwill, complainant offered to buy three full-
page advertisements in the tabloid amounting to ₱45,000 at
₱15,000 per advertisement, and three spots of 30-second
TVC in the television program at ₱7,700 each or a total of
₱23,100. Acting on complainant’s offer, respondent relayed
to it that he and his Executive Producer were disappointed
with the offer and threatened to proceed with the publication
of the articles/columns.7
On August 28, 2004, respondent, in his radio program
Double B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB,
announced the holding of a supposed contest sponsored by
said program, which announcement was transcribed as
follows:
"OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o
ha, meron pa-contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng
Bayan. Ito yung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo, tatawag
kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo
babanggitin po natin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest,
o, ‘aling liver spread ang may uod?’ Yan kita ninyo yan,
ayan malalaman ninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at
sasagot kayo sa akin, aling liver spread ang may uod at
anong companya ang gumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo
sa 433-7549 st 433-7553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa
lahat ng ating tagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang mananalo,
kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver
spread sa Pilipinas an[g] may uod? 8 (Emphasis and
italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
And respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles
which put complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31-
September 6, 2004 issue of Balitang Patas BATAS, he
wrote an article captioned "KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER
SPREAD!" In another article, he wrote "IBA PANG
PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!"9 which appeared in the
same publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And
still in the same publication, its September 14-20, 2004
issue, he wrote another article entitled "DAPAT BANG
PIGILIN ANG CDO."10
Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his
column LAGING HANDA published in another tabloid,
BAGONG TIKTIK, with the following articles:11 (a) "Uod sa
liver spread," Setyembre 6, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.276);12 (b)
"Uod, itinanggi ng CDO," Setyembre 7, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.277);13 (c) "Pagpapatigil sa CDO," Setyembre 8, 2004
(Taon 7, Blg.278);14 (d) "Uod sa liver spread kumpirmado,"
Setyembre 9, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.279);15 (e) "Salaysay ng
nakakain ng uod," Setyembre 10, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.280);16 (f) "Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy," Setyembre 11, 2004
(Taon 7, Blg.281);17 (g) "Kasong Kidnapping laban sa CDO
guards," Setyembre 14, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.284);18 (h)
 PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |2
"Brutalidad ng CDO guards," Setyembre 15, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.285);19 (i) "CDO guards pinababanatan sa PNP,"
Setyembre 17, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.287);20 (j) "May uod na
CDO liver spread sa Puregold binili," Setyembre 18, 2004
(Taon 7, Blg.288);21 (k) "Desperado na ang CDO,"
Setyembre 20, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.290);22 (l) "Atty. Rufus
Rodriguez pumadrino sa CDO," Setyembre 21, 2004 (Taon
7,Blg. 291);23 (m) "Kasunduan ng CDO at Pamilya Cordero,"
Setyembre 22, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 292);24 (n) "Bakit
nagbayad ng P50 libo ang CDO," Setyembre 23, 2004
(Taon 7,Blg. 293).25
In his September 8, 2004 column "Anggulo ng
Batas" published in Hataw!, respondent wrote an article
"Reaksyon pa sa uod ng CDO Liver Spread."26
And respondent, in several episodes in September 2004 of
his television program Kakampi Mo ang Batas aired over
UNTV, repeatedly complained of what complainant claimed
to be the "same baseless and malicious allegations/issues"
against it.27
Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against
respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to
Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised
Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were
pending at he time of the filing of the present administrative
complaint.28
In the criminal complaints pending before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, docketed as I.S. Nos. V-
04-2917-2933, respondent filed his Entry of Appearance
with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases to the
Department of Justice,29 alleging:
xxxx
2.N. The question here is this: What gives, Honorable (???)
Prosecutors of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City?
xxxx
2.R. Can an ordinary person like Villarez simply be tossed
around, waiting for miracles to happen?
2.S. Why? How much miracle is needed to happen here
before this Office would ever act on his complaint?
xxxx
8. With a City Prosecutor acting the way he did in the case
filed by Villarez, and with an investigating prosecutor
virtually kowtowing to the wishes of his boss, the Chief
Prosecutor, can Respondents expect justice to be meted to
them?
9. With utmost due respect, Respondents have reason to
believe that justice would elude them in this Office of the
City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, not because of the
injustice of their cause, but, more importantly, because of
the injustice of the system;
10. Couple all of these with reports that many a government
office in Valenzuela City had been the willing recipient of
too many generosities in the past of the Complainant, and
also with reports that a top official of the City had
campaigned for his much coveted position in the past
distributing products of the Complainant, what would one
expect the Respondents to think?
11. Of course, not to be lost sight of here is the attitude and
behavior displayed even by mere staff and underlings of
this Office to people who dare complain against the
Complainant in their respective turfs. Perhaps, top officials
of this Office should investigate and ask their associates
and relatives incognito to file, even if on a pakunwari basis
only, complaints against the Complainant, and they would
surely be given the same rough and insulting treatment that
Respondent Villarez got when he filed his kidnapping
charge here;30
And in a Motion to Dismiss [the case] for Lack of
Jurisdiction31 which respondent filed, as counsel for his
therein co-respondents-staffers of the newspaper Hataw!,
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City,
respondent alleged:
xxxx
5. If the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a
little of whatever is inside their thick skulls, they would
have clearly deduced that this Office has no jurisdiction
over this action.32 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
Meanwhile, on October 26, 2004, complainant filed a civil
case against respondent and several others, docketed as
Civil Case No. 249-V-04,33 before the Regional Trial Court,
Valenzuela City and raffled to Branch 75 thereof.
The pending cases against him and the issuance of a
status quo order notwithstanding, respondent continued to
publish articles against complainant34 and to malign
complainant through his television shows.
Acting on the present administrative complaint, the
Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) came up with the following findings in his
October 5, 2005 Report and Recommendation:35
I.
xxxx
In Civil Case No. 249-V-04 entitled "Foodsphere, Inc. vs.
Atty. [Melanio] Mauricio, et al.", the Order dated 10
December 2004 (Annex O of the Complaint) was issued by
Presiding Judge Dionisio C. Sison which in part reads:
"Anent the plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order included in the instant plaintiff’s motion,
this Court, inasmuch as the defendants failed to appear in
court or file an opposition thereto, is constrained to GRANT
the said plaintiff’s prater, as it is GRANTED, in order to
maintain STATUS QUO, and that all the defendants, their
agents, representatives or any person acting for and in
behalf are hereby restrained/enjoined from further
publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter
subject of the Complaint in the instant case more
specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff
and its products."
Complainant alleged that the above-quoted Order was
served on respondent by the Branch Sheriff on 13
December 2004. Respondent has not denied the issuance
of the Order dated 10 December 2004 or his receipt of a
copy thereof on 13 December 2004.
Despite his receipt of the Order dated 10 December 2004,
and the clear directive therein addressed to him to desists
[sic] from "further publishing, televising and/or broadcasting
any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case
 PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |3
more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on
plaintiff and its products", respondent in clear defiance of
this Order came out with articles on the prohibited subject
matter in his column "Atty. Batas", 2004 in the December
16 and 17, 2004 issues of the tabloid "Balitang Bayan –
Toro" (Annexes Q and Q-1 of the Complaint).
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of
Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional
Responsibility which reads: "A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending
to arouse public opinion for or against a party."
II.
xxxx
In I.S. No. V.04-2917-2933, then pending before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent filed
his "Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to
Elevate These Cases To the Department of Justice". In said
pleading, respondent made the following statements:
xxxx
The above language employed by respondent undoubtedly
casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City
Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said
Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality and
fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it
and did not even design to submit any evidence to
substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of
the above-quoted language in his pleadings is
manifestly violative of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides: "A lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve
and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect [d]ue [t]o [t]he [c]ourts [a]nd
[t]o [j]udicial [o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n [s]imilar
[c]onduct [b]y [o]thers."
III.
The "Kasunduan" entered into by the Spouses Cordero and
herein complainant (Annex C of the Complaint) was
admittedly prepared, witnessed and signed by herein
respondent. …
xxxx
In its Order dated 16 August 2004, the Bureau of Food and
Drugs recognized that the said "Kasunduan" was not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and
policy, and this accordingly dismissed the complaint filed by
the Spouses Cordero against herein complainant.
However, even after the execution of the "Kasunduan" and
the consequent dismissal of the complaint of his clients
against herein complainant, respondent inexplicably
launched a media offensive intended to disparage and put
to ridicule herein complainant. On record are the numerous
articles of respondent published in 3 tabloids commencing
from 31 August to 17 December 2004 (Annexes G to Q-1).
As already above-stated, respondent continued to come out
with these articles against complainant in his tabloid
columns despite a temporary restraining order issued
against him expressly prohibiting such actions. Respondent
did not deny that he indeed wrote said articles and
submitted them for publication in the tabloids.
Respondent claims that he was prompted by his sense of
public service, that is, to expose the defects of
complainant’s products to the consuming public.
Complainant claims that there is a baser motive to the
actions of respondent. Complainant avers that respondent
retaliated for complainant’s failure to give in to respondent’s
"request" that complainant advertise in the tabloids and
television programs of respondent. Complainant’s
explanation is more credible. Nevertheless, whatever the
true motive of respondent for his barrage of articles against
complainant does not detract from the fact that respondent
consciously violated the spirit behind the "Kasunduan"
which he himself prepared and signed and submitted to the
BFAD for approval. Respondent was less than forthright
when he prepared said "Kasunduan" and then turned
around and proceeded to lambaste complainant for what
was supposedly already settled in said agreement.
Complainant would have been better of with the BFAD case
proceeding as it could have defended itself against the
charges of the Spouses Cordero. Complainant was
helpless against the attacks of respondent, a media
personality. The actuations of respondent constituted, to
say the least, deceitful conduct contemplated under Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.36 (Underscoring supplied)
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVIII-2006-
114 dated March 20, 2006, adopted the findings and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to
suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years.
The Court finds the findings/evaluation of the IBP well-
taken.
The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize
the necessity for every lawyer to act and comport himself in
a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of
the legal profession,37 which confidence may be eroded by
the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the
bar.
By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates
lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP found, he
engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking
advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his
interest – to obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek
sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his
television program.
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates:
A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.
For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and
the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining
further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter
relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with
his attacks against complainant and its products. At the
same time, respondent violated Canon 1 also of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to
"uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes." For he defied
said status quo order, despite his (respondent’s) oath as a
member of the legal profession to "obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities."
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate, viz:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues,
and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
 PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |4
Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper, by using intemperate language.
Apropos  is the following reminder in Saberon v. Larong:38
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has
tempted members of the bar to use strong language in
pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with
vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the
use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds
with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but
not offensive.1awphi1
On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of
the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings
must be dignified.39 (Underscoring supplied)
By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the
exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent
also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to "at all times uphold
the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession."40
1avvph!1
The power of the media to form or influence public opinion
cannot be underestimated. In Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., 41 the
therein complainant engaged therein-herein respondent’s
services as "she was impressed by the pro-poor and pro-
justice advocacy of respondent, a media personality,"42 only
to later find out that after he demanded and the therein
complainant paid an exorbitant fee, no action was taken nor
any pleadings prepared by him. Respondent was
suspended for six months.
On reading the articles respondent published, not to
mention listening to him over the radio and watching him on
television, it cannot be gainsaid that the same could, to a
certain extent, have affected the sales of complainant.
Back to Dalisay, this Court, in denying therein-herein
respondent’s motion for reconsideration, took note of the
fact that respondent was motivated by vindictiveness when
he filed falsification charges against the therein
complainant.43
To the Court, suspension of respondent from the practice of
law for three years is, in the premises, sufficient.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the
lawyer’s oath and breach of ethics of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three years effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is
warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to his personal
record and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
[ADM. CASE No. 7006 : October 9, 2007]
RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z.
BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE
PROSECUTOR.
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
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,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch
29.
Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally raffled to the
sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser, RTC of Surigao
City, Branch 30. In an Order dated March 14, 2002,
Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence
of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus
presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove
the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder.
Consequently, the counsel for the defense filed a
Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent
Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State
Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the
case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that
the original charge of murder, punishable
with reclusion perpetua, was not subject to bail
under Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.1
In an Order dated August 30, 2002, 2 Judge Buyser
inhibited himself from further trying the case
because of the "harsh insinuation" of Senior
Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo that he "lacks the
cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate," by
allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fix
the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused.
The case was transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of
Surigao City, presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan.
In an Order dated November 12, 2002, Judge Tan
favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of
Bail Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond
at P40,000.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Order dated November 12, 2002, which motion was
denied for lack of merit in an Order dated February
10, 2003. In October, 2003, respondent appealed
from the Orders dated November 12, 2002 and
February 10, 2003, to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article
regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in
the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily. The article, entitled "Senior prosecutor
lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect
to bail out," reads:
SENIOR state prosecutor has lashed at a judge in
Surigao City for allowing a murder suspect to go out
on bail.
Senior state prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo
lambasted Judge Manuel Tan of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) Branch 29 based in Surigao City for
 PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |5
ruling on a motion that sought a bailbond for Luis
Plaza who stands charged with murdering a
policeman . . . .
Plaza reportedly posted a P40-thousand bail bond.
Bagabuyo argued that the crime of murder is a non-
bailable offense. But Bagabuyo admitted that a
judge could still opt to allow a murder suspect to
bail out in cases when the evidence of the
prosecution is weak.
But in this murder case, Bagabuyo said the judge
who previously handled it, Judge F[lori]pinas
B[uy]ser, described the evidence to be strong.
B[uy]ser inhibited from the case for an unclear
reason.
xxx
Bagabuyo said he would contest Tan's decision
before the Court of Appeals and would file criminal
and administrative charges of certiorari against the
judge.
Bagabuyuo said he was not afraid of being cited in
contempt by Judge Tan.
"This is the only way that the public would know
that there are judges there who are displaying
judicial arrogance." he said.3
In an Order dated August 21, 2003, the RTC of
Surigao City, Branch 29, directed respondent and
the writer of the article, Mark Francisco of the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily, to appear in court on
September 20, 2003 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
misrepresentation.
The said Order stated that contrary to the
statements in the article, Judge Buyser described
the evidence for the prosecution as not strong, but
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused only for
homicide. Moreover, it was not true that Judge
Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an
unclear reason. Judge Buyser, in an Order dated
August 30, 2002, declared in open court in the
presence of respondent that he was inhibiting
himself from the case due to the harsh insinuation
of respondent that he lacked the cold neutrality of
an impartial judge.
On the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge,
Mark Francisco admitted that the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily caused the publication of the article. He
disclosed that respondent, in a press conference,
stated that the crime of murder is non-bailable.
When asked by the trial court why he printed such
lies, Mr. Francisco answered that his only source
was respondent.4 Mr. Francisco clarified that in the
statement alleging that Judge Buyser inhibited
himself from the case for an unclear reason, the
phrase "for an unclear reason," was added by the
newspaper's Executive Editor Herby S. Gomez.5
Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of
the press conference, but refused to answer
whether he made the statements in the article until
after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss. For his
refusal to answer, the trial court declared him in
contempt of court pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court.6 The Court's Order dated September
30, 2003 reads:
ORDER
Mr. Mark Francisco for publishing this article which
is a lie clothed in half truth to give it a semblance of
truth is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.
Prosecutor Bagabuyo, for obstinately refusing to
explain why he should not be cited for contempt
and admitting that the article published in the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily on August 18, 2003 and
quoted in the Order of this Court dated August 21,
2003 which is contemptuous was caused by him to
be published, is hereby adjudged to have committed
indirect contempt of Court pursuant to Section 3 of
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and he is hereby
ordered to suffer the penalty of 30 days in jail. The
BJMP is hereby ordered to arrest Prosecutor Rogelio
Z. Bagabuyo if he does not put up a bond
of P100,000.00.
SO ORDERD.7
Respondent posted the required bond and was
released from the custody of the law. He appealed
the indirect contempt order to the CA.
Despite the citation of indirect contempt,
respondent presented himself to the media for
interviews in Radio Station DXKS, and again
attacked the integrity of Judge Tan and the trial
court's disposition in the proceedings of Crim. Case
No. 5144.
In an Order dated October 20, 2003, the RTC of
Surigao City, Branch 29, required respondent to
explain and to show cause within five days from
receipt thereof why he should not be held in
contempt for his media interviews that degraded
the court and the presiding judge, and why he
should not be suspended from the practice of law
for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 11.05 of Canon 118 and Rule 13.02
of Canon 13.9
In the Order, the trial court stated that respondent
was interviewed by Jun Clergio, and that the
interview was repeatedly aired on September 30,
2003 and in his news program between 6:00 and
8:00 a.m. on October 1, 2003. He was also
interviewed by Tony Consing on October 1 and 2,
2003, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. in his radio
program. In those radio interviews, respondent
allegedly called Judge Tan a judge who does not
know the law, a liar, and a dictator who does not
accord due process to the people.
The hearing for the second contempt charge was set
on December 4, 2003.
 PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |6
On November, 20, 2003, respondent filed an Urgent
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to
Contempt alleging that he was saddled with work of
equal importance and needed ample time to answer
the same. He also prayed for a bill of particulars in
order to properly prepare for his defense.
In an Order dated November 20, 2003, the trial
court denied the motion. It stated that a bill of
particulars is not applicable in contempt
proceedings, and that respondent's actions and
statements are detailed in the Order of October 20,
2003.
On the scheduled hearing of December 4, 2003
respondent neither appeared in court nor informed
the court of his absence. The trial court issued an
Order dated December 4, 2003 cancelling the
hearing "to give Prosecutor Bagabuyo all the
chances he asks for," and ordered him to appear on
January 12, 2004 to explain in writing or orally why
he should not be cited in contempt of court
pursuant to the facts stated in the Order dated
October 20, 2003. However, respondent did not
appear in the scheduled hearing of January 12,
2004.
On January 15, 2004, the trial court received
respondent's Answer dated January 8, 2004.
Respondent denied the charge that he sought to be
interviewed by radio station DXKS. He, however,
stated that right after the hearing of September 30,
2003, he was approached by someone who asked
him to comment on the Order issued in open court,
and that his comment does not fall within the
concept of indirect contempt of court. He also
admitted that he was interviewed by his friend,
Tony Consing, at the latter's instance. He justified
his response during the interview as a simple
exercise of his constitutional right of freedom of
speech and that it was not meant to offend or
malign, and was without malice.
On February 8, 2004, the trial court issued an
Order, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding preponderant evidence that
Prosecutor Bagabuyo has grossly violated the
Canons of the legal profession and [is] guilty of
grave professional misconduct, rendering him unfit
to continue to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to the office of an
attorney, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law.
Likewise, he is also found guilty of indirect contempt
of court, for which he is hereby ordered to suffer
the penalty of IMPRISONMENT for ninety (90) days
to be served at the Surigao City Jail and to pay the
maximum fine of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00). Future acts of contempt will be dealt
with more severely.
Let copies of the relevant records be immediately
forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic
review and for further determination of grounds for
[the] disbarment of Prosecutor Rogelio Z.
Bagabuyo.10
The trial court found respondent's denials to be
lame as the tape of his interview on October 2,
2003, duly transcribed, showed disrespect of the
court and its officers, thus:
TONY CONSING: Fiscal, nanglabay ang mga oras,
nanglabay ang gamay'ng panahon ang samad sa
imong kasingkasing nagpabilin pa ba ni. O ingnon
nato duna na bay pagbag-o sa imong huna-huna
karon?
(Fiscal, after the lapse of time, are you still hurt? Or
have you not changed your mind yet?)
BAGABUYO : Ang akong huna-huna kon aduna man
ugaling pagbag-o ang pagsiguro, ang mga Huwes
nga dili mahibalo sa balaod tangtangon pagka
abogado, mao kana.
(If my mind has changed at all, it is that I ensure
that all judges who are ignorant of the law should
be disbarred. That's it.)
xxx
BAGABUYO :  Mao kana ang tinuod, Ton, ug kining
akong guibatonan karon nga hunahuna mahitungod
nianang mga Huwes nga dili kahibalo sa balaod,
magkadugay magkalami. Kada adlao nagatoon ako.
Nagabasa ako sa mga bag-ong  jurisprudence ug sa
atong balaod aron sa pagsiguro gayod nga
inigsang-at unya nako sa kaso
nga  disbarment  niining di mahibalo nga Huwes,
sigurado gayod ako nga katangtangan siya sa
lisensiya . . . . Ang  kini nga Huwes nga dili
mahibalo sa balaod, pagatangtangon na, dili lamang
sa pagka-Huwes kon dili sa pagka-abogado. Tan-
awa ra gyod kining iyang gibuhat nga  Order,  Ton,
ang  iyang pagkabakakon  . . . .
(That's true, Ton, and this conviction I have now
about judges who are ignorant of the law is made
firmer by time. I study everyday. I read new
jurisprudence and the law to insure that when I file
the disbarment case against this Judge who does
not know his law, I am certain that he loses his
license. . . . This judge who is ignorant of the
law should not only be removed as a judge but
should also be disbarred. Just take a look at his
Order, Ton, and see what a liar he is . . . .)
xxx
BAGABUYO : Yes, nag-ingon ang
iyang  Order. . . .  Ngano nga nakaingon ako
nga  bakakon kini, nag-ingon nga kini konong  order
given in open court, ang kalooy sa dios, ang
iyang  order  sa Korte wala siya mag-ingon ug
kantidad nga  P100,000.00  nga bail bond. . . .
(Yes, his Order said that . . . . Why did I say that he
is a liar? It states that this Order was "given in open
court," and in God's mercy, he did not state the
amount of P100,000.00 as bail bond. . . .)
BAGABUYO : Kay dili man lagi mahibalo sa balaod,
ako
 PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |7
siyang gui-ingnan, Your Honor, I have the right to
appeal. Mibalik dayon, ug miingon siya, BJMP arrest
Bagabuyo.
(Because he does not know the law, I said, "Your
Honor, I have the right to appeal." Then he came
back and said, "BJMP, arrest Bagabuyo.")
xxx
BAGABUYO : . . . P100,000.00 ang iyang
guipapiyansa.
Naunsa na? Dinhi makita nimo ang iyang
pagka gross ignorance of the law. . . .
(He imposed a bail of P100,000.00. How come? This
is where you will see his gross ignorance of the law.
...)
xxx
TONY CONSING : So karon, unsay plano nimo
karon?
(So what is your plan now?)
BAGABUYO : Sumala sa akong gui-ingon moundang
lang ako kon matangtang na siya sa pagka
abogado. . . .
(As I have said, I will only stop if he is already
disbarred. . . .)
xxx
BAGABUYO : Nasuko siya niini kay hambugero
kuno, pero angayan niyang hibaw-an nga ang
trabajo sa Huwes dili ang pagtan-aw kon ang tawo
hambugero . . . . Ug ang akong gisulti mao lamang
ang balaod nga siya in fact at that time I said he is
not conversant of the law, with regards to the case
of murder. . . .
(He got angry because I was allegedly bragging but
he should know that it is not for a judge to
determine if a person is a braggart. . . .And what I
said was based on the law. In fact, at that time, I
said he is not conversant of the law, with regards to
the case of murder . . . .)
xxx
BAGABUYO : Ah, mi  sit down sab ako,  contempt ra
ba kadto . . . . Mao kana, pero unsa may iyang
katuyoan - ang iyang katuyoan nga ipa-adto ako
didto kay didto, iya akong pakauwawan kay iya
kong sikopon, iya kong ipa-priso, pero kay di man
lagi mahibalo sa balaod, ang iyang gui orderan
BJMP, intawon por dios por Santo, Mr. Tan, pagbasa
intawon ug balaod, naunsa ka ba Mr. Tan? Unsa
may imong hunahuna nga kon ikaw Huwes, ikaw na
ang diktador, no way, no sir, ours is a democratic
country where all and everyone is entitled to due
process of law - you did not accord me due process
of law . . . .
(I sat down. . . . That's it. But what was his
purpose? He made me come in order to humiliate
me because he wanted me arrested, he wanted me
imprisoned, but because he is ignorant of the law,
he ordered the BMJP. For God's sake, Mr. Tan,
what's wrong with you, Mr. Tan? Please read the
law. What is your thinking? That when you are a
judge, you are also a dictator? No way, no sir, ours
is a democratic country where all and everyone is
entitled to due process of law - you did not accord
me due process of law. . . .)
TONY CONSING: So mopasaka
kang disbarment, malaumon kita nga maaksiyonan
kini, with all this problem sa Korte Suprema.
(So you are filing a disbarment case? We hope that
this be given action with all the problems in the
Supreme Court.)
BAGABUYO : Dili ako mabalaka niana kay usa
ka truck ang akong jurisprudence, nga ang mga
Huwes nga di mahibalo sa balaod pagatangtangon
gayod sa ilang pagka Huwes. . . .  Apan unsa man
intawon ang balaod ang iyang gibasa niini
nadunggan ko nga kini kuno siya madjongero, mao
bitaw na, madjong ang iyang guitunan?
(I am not worried because I have a truckload of
jurisprudence that judges who are ignorant of the
law must be removed from the Bench. But what law
has he been reading? I heard that he is a
mahjong aficionado (mahjongero) and that is why
he is studying mahjong.11
The trial court concluded that respondent, as a
member of the bar and an officer of the court, is
duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of
the court, and should not promote distrust in the
administration of justice.
The trial court stated that it is empowered to
suspend respondent from the practice of law under
Sec. 28, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court 12 for any of
the causes mentioned in Sec. 2713 of the same Rule.
Respondent was given the opportunity to be heard,
but he opted to be silent. Thus, it held that the
requirement of due process has been duly satisfied.
In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 29, 14 Rule
138 and Sec. 9,15 Rule 139 of the Rules of Court,
the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, transmitted to
the Office of the Bar Confidant the Statement of
Facts of respondent's suspension from the practice
of law, dated July 14, 2005, together with the order
of suspension and other relevant documents.
In its Report dated January 4, 2006, the Office of
the Bar Confidant found that the article in the
August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star
Daily, which maligned the integrity and
independence of the court and its officers, and
respondent's criticism of the trial court's Order
dated November 12, 2002, which was aired in radio
station DXKS, both in connection with Crim. Case
No. 5144, constitute grave violation of oath of office
by respondent. It stated that the requirement of
due process was complied with when respondent
was given an opportunity to be heard, but
respondent chose to remain silent.
 PALE (Cases for Canons 13 and 14) |8

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not
implementation of the trial court's order of resorting to the proper authorities only for redress
suspension dated February 8, 2004, and that of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent
respondent be suspended from the practice of law also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the
for one year, with a stern warning that the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan
repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with was ignorant of the law, that as a
more severely. mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong
instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
The Court approves the recommendation of the
Office of the Bar Confidant. It has been reiterated Respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath, as he
in Gonzaga v. Villanueva, Jr.16 that: has sworn to "conduct [himself] as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his as to [his] clients."
duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming an
attorney. Among the grounds enumerated in As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court,
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court are respondent should have set the example of
deceit; malpractice; gross misconduct in office; observing and maintaining the respect due to the
grossly immoral conduct; conviction of a crime courts and to judicial officers. Montecillo v.
involving moral turpitude; any violation of the oath Gica19 held:
which he is required to take before admission to the
practice of law; willful disobedience of any lawful It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the
order of a superior court; corrupt or willful courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the
appearance as an attorney for a party to a case court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and
without authority to do so. The grounds are not authority of the court to which he owes fidelity,
preclusive in nature even as they are broad enough according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the
as to cover practically any kind of impropriety that a courts guarantees the stability of our democratic
lawyer does or commits in his professional career or institutions which, without such respect, would be
in his private life. A lawyer must at no time be resting on a very shaky foundation.
wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not
only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar,
The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances
but are likewise essential demands for his continued
against erring judges but the rules clearly provide
membership therein.
for the proper venue and procedure for doing so,
precisely because respect for the institution must
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are always be maintained.
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty.
liabilities are devolved by law as a
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule
consequence.17 Membership in the bar imposes
11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the
upon them certain obligations.18 Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and of violating
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a
the Lawyer's Oath, for which he
lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should
year effective upon finality of this Decision, with
insist on similar conduct by others." Rule 11.05 of
a STERN WARNING that the repetition of a similar
Canon 11 states that a lawyer "shall submit
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
grievances against a judge to the proper authorities
only."
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when
personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar
he admittedly caused the holding of a press
of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all
conference where he made statements against the
courts in the country for their information and
Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the
guidance.
accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on
bail.
No costs.
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he
indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying SO ORDERED.
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