PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST

PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

Duty of the Lawyer to the Society – Duty to Uphold the Constitution and Obey the Laws of the
Land
Jimenez vs. Atty. Verano, Jr. Adm. Case No. 8108, July 15, 2014
PONENTE:, Sereno, C.J. DIGEST MAKER: Arellano

DOCTRINE/S:

FACTS: Jimenez vs. Atty. Verano, Jr.

Brodett & Tecson were the accused in cases filed by the PDEA for illegal sale & use of dangerous
drugs, they were represented by respondent Atty. Verano. In a Joint Inquest Resolution, the charges
were dropped for lack of probable cause. Bec. of failure of the Prosec to ask clarificatory questions
during the evaluation of the case, several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery & "cover-up"
allegedly prevalent in investigations of the drug trade. Thus, the House Committee on Illegal Drugs
conducted its own congressional hearings. It was revealed during said hearing that Atty. Verano had
prepared the release order for his three clients using the letterhead of the DOJ & the stationery of
then SOJ Gonzales.

Complainants Jimenez & Vizconde, (as founders of Volunteers Against Crime & Corruption, sent a
letter of complaint to then C.J. Reynato Puno. Stating that Atty. Verano had admitted drafting the
release order & thereby committed a highly irregular & unethical act. They argued that Atty.
Verano had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead & should be penalized for acts unbecoming a
member of the bar.

Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on Atty. Verano's alleged violation of Canon 1 of the CPR, which
states that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, & promote respect for legal
processes. Atty. Lozano contended that Atty. Verano showed disrespect for the law & legal
processes in drafting the said order & sending it to a high-ranking public official, even though the latter
was not a gov’t prosecutor. However, Atty. Lozano subsequently withdrew his Complaint on the ground
that a similar action had been filed by Jimenez.

For his part Atty. Verano made mention of the Joint Inquest Resolution which dropped the charges
against his clients for lack of probable cause & argued that the resolution also ordered the immediate
release of Brodett & Tecson. However, PDEA still refused to release his clients. Believing in the
innocence of his clients & advancing their cause this prompted Atty. Verano to prepare & draft the
release order. But since the drafted release order was not signed by the SOJ, Atty. Verano claimed
that such remained "a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all.

SC referred both cases to the IBP for consolidation, investigation, report & recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner [IC] noted that both complaints remained unsubstantiated & no
evidence was adduced to prove the charges. However, by Atty. Verano’s own admissions in his
Comment, that he drafted the release order specifically for the signature of the SOJ. Such act
was found to be highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public official. Hence, IC found Atty.
Verano guilty of violating Canon 13 of the CPR and recommended that he be issued a warning not to
repeat the same or any similar action.
ISSUE/S: [qualifications]
WON Atty. Verano committed acts of influence peddling when he personally visited the SOJ &
caused preparation of the draft release order in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s case
whose cases were still pending, thus failing to promote respect for the legal processes & the rule
of law.
SC RULING:
The SC ruled in the affirmative.
SC emphasized that it may conduct its own investigation into charges against members of the bar, irrespective of
the form of initiatory complaints brought before it. Thus, a complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to

1
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the SC.

As to Atty. Lozano's withdrawal of his verified Complaint, SC reiterated its ruling in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos: The
affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate
the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainant. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred
despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.

SC agreed w/ the IBP in holding Atty. Verano administratively liable. Canon 13 applied by the IC, states
that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause & refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court."
SC believed that other provisions in the CPR likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not limited
to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the justice sector (like in the case at bar, a gov’t
agency like DOJ), where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.

During the hearing conducted by the Committee on Bar Discipline, Atty. Verano stated that the PDEA
refused to release his clients unless it received a direct order from the SOJ. Said refusal prompted
him to take a more serious action, in this case…. to see the SOJ himself personally. Atty. Verano
likewise stated that his "experience with the SOJ is that he is very open & bec. of his practice & as well
belonging to a political family he is not a complete stranger to the SOJ. Atty. Verano even admitted that
he was personally acquainted with the SOJ; however, they were not that close.

The said statements made by Atty. Verano established his admission that
1) he personally approached the SOJ despite the fact that the case was still pending before the latter;
and
2) he caused the preparation of the draft release order on official DOJ stationery despite being
unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of "expediting the case."

SC held, that the way Atty. Verano conducted himself, manifested a clear intent to gain special
treatment & consideration from a gov’t agency & precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be
regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Atty. Verano is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that
tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case. Primary duty of
lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice, their clients' success is wholly
subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to & must always be observant of the law &
ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair & honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit
of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable & unethical. Zeal & persistence in advancing a
client's cause must always be within the bounds of the law
Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Further, according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal
or legislative body." The succeeding
rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a lawyer "to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness."

The SC found that Atty. Verano fell short of these exacting standards & that a mere warning would not
serve as commensurate penalty for the offense. Thus, Atty. Verano was suspended from the practice
of law for 6 months.
NOTES:

Duty of the Lawyer to the Society – Duty of a Lawyer Employed in the Government

Facturan vs. Barcelona

2
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

This case involved a disbarment case filed by complainant Ronaldo Facturan against respondent Prosec
Barcelona. Facturan alleged that he filed a complaint for qualified theft against Pilar Mendoza, Jose
Sarcon, Elezar Barcelona, Rodrigo Arro, & Joseph Montero; collectively respondents (Mendoza, et al.)
before the Prov. Prosecution Office of Alabel, Sarangani Province. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 04-
211 & assigned for Preliminary Investigation to Prosec Amerkhan.

Amerkhan forwarded the records of the case, together w/ his Resolution that recommended prosecution
of respondents & the corresponding Information, to Prosec Barcelona for his approval & signature.
But Barcelona neither approved nor signed the resolution. Instead, he removed the case records from
the Office of the Prov. Prosecutor & brought them to his residence. It appears that the respondents in said
case were personally known to Barcelona, as Elezar is his cousin, while the other respondents are his
close friends.

Aggrieved, Facturan sought the intervention of the SOJ who, through the Chief State Prosecutor,
endorsed Facturan's concerns to the State Prosecutor. Unfortunately, the State Prosec could not take
appropriate action on the said case as the case records were still in the possession of Barcelona who
failed to turn them over despite being directed to do so. Soon after Facturan learned that the case
records had been turned over to the Prov. Prosecution Office but w/o Prosec Amerkhan's Resolution &
Information.
(As his defense)
Barcelona claimed that the alleged malicious delaying or perceived concealment of the case records
was neither intentional nor due to favoritism, as he had inhibited himself from the case, the reason why
said case was assigned to Prosec Amerkhan. He further averred that, Facturan already knew that he
was predisposed to disapprove the resolution prepared by Amerkhan, as the controversy merely
involved a boundary dispute. Having advised Amerkhan to conduct a clarificatory hearing instead of
prematurely concluding the preliminary investigation. However, Amerkhan failed to do so, resulting in the
delay in the resolution of the case.
That except for the fact that a criminal information had been filed, he was no longer aware of any
development in the case, having been subsequently detailed (transferred) to the DOJ in Manila. He
asserted that Facturan & Amerkhan manipulated the filing in court of I.S. No. 04-211 through the original
resolution prepared by the latter.
The OCA indorsed Facturan's Affidavit-Complaint to the IBP, which then set the case for mandatory conference. However, only Prosec Barcelona appeared, prompting the IBP to terminate the mandatory conference & ordered the submission of the parties' position
papers. Unfortunately, the parties did not submit the required position papers.

The IBP Report and Recommendation

In a Report, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP, through Investigating Commissioner found Prosec Barcelona to have violated Canons 18 and 18.03 of the CPR and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period ranging
from 6 months to 2 years upon the discretion of the IBP Governing Board.

IBP found that the case records were removed by Prosec Barcelona from the Office of the Prov.
Prosecutor & kept in his possession. That he failed to timely turn over the said case records upon
order of State Prosecutor. The case records remained in Barcelona’s possession even after he had
been detailed (transferred) to the DOJ in Manila. Furthermore, Barcelona failed to perform his duty of
approving or disapproving Prosec Amerkhan's recommendation pertaining to the case. As such, he is
also guilty of violating Canon 6.01 of the CPR for his failure to resolve I.S. No. 04-211 & delaying its
resolution by keeping the case records in his possession.
In a Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted & approved the foregoing recommendation and
suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of 1 year.

Issue:
Did Prosec Barcelona used his public position as a prosecutor to advance & protect the private interest
of his relative when he failed to resolve & turn over the case records of I.S. No. 04-211 despite being
ordered to do so.
WON Barcelona fail & neglect to discharge his official duty as a prosecutor when he failed to resolve &
turn over the case record despite being ordered to do so, in order to advance & protect the private
interests of his relatives who were respondents to the said case.

Ruling: [affirmative]
SC concurred w/ the IBP's factual findings & recommendation to hold Prosec Barcelona administratively
liable for violating Canon 6 of the CPR.

3
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

Generally, a lawyer who holds a gov’t office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a gov’t official. He may be disciplined by the SC as a
member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks
Canon 6 is particularly directed to lawyers in the gov’t service, are enjoined from using one's
In this regard, Rule 6.02 of

public position to:

1) promote private interests; 2) advance private interests; or 3) allow private interests to interfere with
public duties.
In Ali v. Bubong, the SC recognized that private interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to
advancing the interest of relatives.
IN THE CASE AT BAR
Barcelona's accountability regarding the case records has been duly established. When Amerkhan
forwarded to Barcelona the records of the case, together w/ the resolution recommending filing of the
appropriate information in court, Barcelona failed to take the appropriate action, as it was showed that
he neither approved nor disapproved it. If Barcelona did not concur w/ the findings & recommendation of
Amerkhan, who conducted the Preliminary Investigation, Barcelona should have timely disapproved his
recommendation to enable Facturan to take the appropriate remedy to challenge the disapproval.

As to Barcelona 's defense that Facturan was already aware beforehand that he was inclined to
disapprove the resolution prepared by Amerkhan, whom he ordered to conduct a clarificatory hearing on the case Untenable
To the SC if such was the case, then nothing could have prevented Barcelona from proceeding to
disapprove the resolution. Yet he absolutely took no action thereon. Worse, he removed the case records
from the office of the Prov. Prosecutor &, when directed to turn them over, he failed to do so
notwithstanding his subsequent assignment to the DOJ in Manila. As a result, no further action had been
taken on the said case.
In fact, as of June 30, 2005, Prosec Barcelona still had not complied with State Prosecutor Pinote's directive to return not only the case records but all the cases previously assigned to him as well.

Needless to state, Prosecutor Barcelona ought to have known that w/o the case records, no further action could be taken on any of those cases. His assignment to the DOJ in Manila in February 2005 should have even prompted him to turn over the case records of
I.S. No. 04-211 for appropriate action, but he still failed to do so, w/o any plausible reason.

Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses in the handling & his failure to timely return the
case records, it can only be inferred that Barcelona not merely failed, but obstinately & deliberately
refused to perform his duties as a prosecutor. Such refusal, evidently worked to the advantage of the
respondents in the said case — which included his cousin, Elezar — as the absence of the case records
resulted in the delay in the filing of the appropriate criminal information in court against them.
Hence, it is apparent that Barcelona used his public position as a prosecutor to advance & protect the
private interest of his relative, which is clearly proscribed in the CPR.
Indeed, Prosec Barcelona's actions & omissions in this case, his failure to resolve & to turn over the case records despite orders to do so, appear to have been committed for the benefit of & to safeguard private interests.

As a lawyer who is also a public officer, Prosec Barcelona miserably failed to cope w/ the strict demands
& high standards of the legal profession. It bears stressing that a lawyer in public office is expected not
only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust & confidence of the citizenry
in gov’t, he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times & observe a high standard of
honesty & fair dealing. A lawyer in gov’t service is a keeper of the public faith & is burdened w/ high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.

Accordingly, the SC finds that suspension for a period of 1 year, as recommended by the IBP, should be
meted upon respondent.

Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts – Duty to refrain from Impropriety

In the matter of proceeding for disciplinary action against Atty. Vicente Almacen

4
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

Virginia Yaptinchay was represented by Atty. Almacen in a civil case. After a judgment against his client
was rendered, he filed a MR. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the motion but did not notify the
latter of the time & place of hearing on said motion. Thus, his motion was denied. Following that, he filed
an appeal with the CA but the CA dismissed said appeal & agreed with the trial court's decision.

The SC ultimately rejected Atty, Almacen's appeal outright in a minute resolution.

This attracted the anger of Almacen who regarded such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then
filed before the SC a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to
continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas
for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of
the Constitution with impunity.

He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k w/o knowing the
reasons why & that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.” He also stated
“that justice as administered by the present members of the SC is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.”

The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the SC wanted to wait for Almacen
to actually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate. The SC resolved to
require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary action should be taken against him" after he
failed to turn over his Certificate even after his own petition.

Almacen then asked that he may be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action
should be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing.” He said he preferred this considering that
the Supreme Court is “the complainant, prosecutor and Judge.” Almacen was however unapologetic.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Almacen failed to exhibit decency & propriety when he filed the petition to surrender his
lawyer’s certificate of title and uttered unfair criticism against the SC

RULING: [SC ruled in the affirmative]

The SC first clarified that minute resolutions are needed bec. the SC cannot accept every case or write
full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the SC would be unable to effectively carry out its
constitutional duties.

The proper role of the SC is to decide “only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will
have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved.” It should be remembered
that a petition to review the decision of the CA is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and
so there is no need to fully explain the SC’s denial. For one thing, the facts & the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

On Atty. Almacen’s attack against the SC, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for; that
such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an
officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through
legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. 

His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair & respectful manner, & the
independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is
the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, & shall not spill over the walls of
decency & propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is misplaced.

5
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a MR which failed to notify the opposing party of the time
and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper & will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to
blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.

In re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Bagabuyo, former Senior State Prosecutor

FACTS:

6
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

The administrative case at bar stemmed from the proceedings in a Crim. Case entitled People vs. Luis
Plaza, heard before the RTC of Surigao City Presided by J. Tan. The CrimCase was originally raffled to
the sala of J. Buyser. In an Order, J. Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused,
declaring that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide &
not the charge of murder. Consequently, counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail
Bond. Respondent Atty. Bagabuyo, the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected on the ground that the
original charge of murder, punishable w/ reclusion perpetua, was not subject to bail.

J. Buyser inhibited himself from further trying the case bec. of the "harsh insinuation" of Prosec.
Bagabuyo that he "lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate," by allegedly suggesting the filing of
the motion to fix amount of the bail bond. The case was transferred to J. Tan who favorably resolved the
Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond & fixed the amount of the bond at P40K. Atty. Bagabuyo filed a MR
which was denied, thereafter Atty. Bagabuyo to appealed the CA.

Instead of availing appropriate judicial remedies, Prosec Bagabuyo caused the publication of an article
regarding the Order that granted bail in the Aug 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The
article was 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 ruling on
a motion that sought a bailbond for Luis Plaza who stands charged with murdering a policeman. . . .Plaza reportedly posted a P40K 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 Buyser, described the evidence to be strong. Buyser inhibited from the case for an unclear
reason. xxx xxx xxx

Bagabuyo said he would contest Tan's decision before the CA & would file criminal and administrative charges of certiorari against the judge. Bagabuyo 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.

In an Order, the RTC of Surigao City, directed Atty. Bagabuyo & the writer of the article for the Mindanao
Gold Star Daily, to appear in court to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court
for the publication of the article which degraded the court & its presiding judge with its lies and
misrepresentation. Bagabuyo refused to explain & RTC held him in contempt of court.
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. That it was not true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from
the case for an unclear reason having declared in open court in the presence of Atty. Bagabuyo 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.

Atty. Bagabuyo 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. Due to
such refusal, the RTC declared him in contempt of court.

Despite the citation of indirect contempt, Prosec Bagabuyo presented himself to the media for interviews
in Radio Station DXKS, & again attacked the integrity of J. Tan & the RTC's disposition in the
proceedings of the Crim. Case. In those radio interviews, Atty. Bagabuyp allegedly called J. Tan a judge
who does not know the law, a liar, and a dictator who does not accord due process to the people & that
he was a mahjong aficionado (mahjongero), he was studying mahjong instead of studying law.
The second contempt charge.
In an Order, the RTC of Surigao City required Prosec Bagabuyo to explain & to show cause w/in 5 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 CPR.
He admitted that he was interviewed but justified his response during the interview as a simple exercise
of his constitutional right of freedom of speech & that it was not meant to offend or malign, & was w/o
malice.

The RTC found that Atty. Bagabuyo has grossly violated the Canons of the legal profession & is guilty of
grave professional misconduct & was suspended from the practice of law. Likewise, he is also found
guilty of indirect contempt of court. Copies of the records were forwarded to the SC for automatic review &
for further determination of grounds for [the] disbarment of Prosecutor Bagabuyo.
TONY CONSING:
(Fiscal, after the lapse of time, are you still hurt? Or have you not changed your mind yet?)
BAGABUYO:
(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 xxx xxx
BAGABUYO:
(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 xxx xxx
BAGABUYO:
(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 P100K as bail bond. .. .)
BAGABUYO:
(Bec. he does not know the law, I said, "Your Honor, I have the right to appeal." Then he came back & said, "BJMP, arrest Bagabuyo.")
xxx xxx xxx
BAGABUYO:
(He imposed a bail of P100K. How come? This is where you will see his gross ignorance of the law. . . . )
xxx xxx xxx
TONY CONSING:
(So what is your plan now?)
BAGABUYO:
(As I have said, I will only stop if he is already disbarred. . . .) xxx xxx xxx
BAGABUYO:
(He got angry bec. 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 xxx xxx

7
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ
BAGABUYO:
(I sat down. . . . That's it. But what was his purpose? He made me come in order to humiliate me bec. he wanted me arrested, he wanted me imprisoned, but bec. 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 & everyone is entitled to due process of law – you did not accord me due process of law. . . .)
TONY CONSING:
(So you are filing a disbarment case? We hope that this be given action with all the problems in the SC.)
BAGABUYO:
(I am not worried bec. 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

RTC 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 RTC stated that it is empowered to suspend respondent from the practice of law under Sec. 28, Rule 138 of the ROC for any of the causes mentioned in Sec. 27 of the same Rule.

Prosec. Bagabuyo 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,
Rule 138 and Sec. 9, Rule 139 of the ROC, the RTC of Surigao City, transmitted to the Office of the
Bar Confidant the Statement of Facts of respondent's suspension from the practice of law together with
the order of suspension and other relevant documents.

OBC found that the article in issue which maligned the integrity & independence of the court & its officers,
and respondent's criticism of the trial court's Order which was aired in radio station both in connection
with Crim. Case constitute grave violation of oath of office by respondent.
to remain silent.
It stated that the requirement of due process was complied with when respondent was given an opportunity to be heard, but respondent chose

The OBC recommended the implementation of the trial court's order of suspension and that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning that the repetition of a similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:
WON Prosec Bagabuyo committed impropriety amounting to gross misconduct when he published the
article which maligned the integrity & independence of the courts & held a press conference where he
criticized the Order which allowed the accused in the Crim. Case to be released on bail.

RULING: [Ruled in the affirmative]

SC approves the recommendation of the OBC. It has been reiterated in Gonzaga v. Villanueva, Jr. that:
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties, or
an odious deportment unbecoming of an attorney. Among the grounds enumerated in Sec. 27, Rule 138
of the ROC are deceit; malpractice; gross misconduct in office; grossly immoral conduct; (among
others) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to the practice of law; willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case w/o authority to do so.
The grounds are not preclusive in nature even as they are broad enough as to cover practically any kind
of impropriety that a lawyer does or commits in his professional career or in his private life. A lawyer must at no time be wanting
in probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar, but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein.

Canon 11 of the CPR mandates a lawyer to "observe

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute & defend; & upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities & liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations.

& maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and he should insist on similar conduct by
others." One of the Rule under Canon 11 states that a lawyer "shall submit grievances
Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states

against a judge to the proper authorities only."

Atty. Bagabuyo violated said Rule Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press 11.05 of

conference where he made statements against the Order which allowed the accused in the Crim. Case to
be released on bail & during his radio interview where he uttered unkind remarks towards J. Tan.
Showing disrespect of the court & 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.

His statements in the article, which were made while the

He also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that J. Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article in issue.

Crim. Case was still pending in court, also violated 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."

Atty. Bagabuyo also violated the Lawyer's Oath, as he has sworn to "conduct [himself] as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge & discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his]
clients." As a senior state prosecutor & officer of the court, Atty. Bagabuyo should have set the example
of observing & maintaining the respect due to the courts & to judicial officers. Montecillo vs. Gica held:
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity & authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the
stability of our democratic institutions which, w/o such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

8
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGEST
PROF. JOSEPH DE CHAVEZ

The SC is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the
proper venue & procedure for doing so, precisely bec. respect for the institution must always be maintained.
SC suspended Atty. Bagabuyo from the practice of law for 1 year.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule 11.05,
Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the CPR, and of violating the Lawyer's Oath, for which he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 1 year effective upon finality of this Decision.

Binay-an v. Addog, AC 10449, July 28, 2014 very important case.

9
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW – 3S AY 2022-2023