PALE CASE

Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, former Senior State Prosecutor | Adm.

Case No. 7006 | 9 October 2007

Facts:
1. The Administrative case stemmed from the events of the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 5144: People v. Luis Plaza. Plaza was accused of
murdering a policeman. The Criminal case was originally raffled to the sala
of Judge Buyser. Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the
accused, declaring that evidence presented was sufficient to prove the
crime of homicide but not murder.

2. Counsel for Plaza filed a Motion to Fix Amount of Bail, but Senior State
Prosecutor Bagabuyo (who was in charge of the case) objected thereto on
the ground that the original charge of murder was not subject to bail (Rules
of Court). Judge Buyser inhibited himself from trying the case because of
the “harsh insinuation” of 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.

3. The Case was transferred to Judge Tan, who fixed the amount of bail at
P40,000. Instead of availing of judicial remedies, Bagabuyo caused the
publication of an article regarding the Order granting the bail in the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily, “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for
allowing murder suspect to bail out.”

4. In the article, Bagabuyo argued that the crime of murder is non-bailable,

but 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. He claims that
the former judge found the evidence to be strong.

5. He stated that he was not afraid to be cited for contempt because it was the
only way for the public to know that there are judges displaying judicial
arrogance.

6. RTC directed Bagabuyo (and the writer of the article) to explain why he
should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the
article which degraded the court with its presiding judge with its lies and
misrepresentations. Bagabuyo refused to explain and the RTC held him in
contempt of court, sentencing him to 30 days in jail (he posted a bail bond
and was released).

7. Despite this, Bagabuyo presented himself to the media for interviews in

Radio Station DXKS and again, attacked the integrity of Judge Tan. In the
radio interview, Bagabuyo called Judge Tan a liar, ignorant of the law and
that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying
the law.

8. RTC required Bagabuyo to explain and show cause why he should not be
held in contempt and be suspended from the practice of law for violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 11.05 and Rule 13.02).
 Bagabuyo denied the charge that he sought to be interviewed. He said that
he was approached by someone who asked him to comment on the Order.
He justified his response to the interview (at the instance of his friend) as a
simple exercise of his constitutional right of freedom of speech and that it
was made without malice.

9. RTC found his denials lame, held him in contempt, and suspended him from
the practice of law for 1 year. In accordance with the Rules of Court, the
case was transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which
recommended the implementation of the RTC’s order of suspension.

Issue:
WON the respondent be held in contempt and suspended for violating Rule 11.05,
Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held:
1. Yes, the respondent was guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule
13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. Canon 11 mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to

the courts and to judicial officers. Bagabuyo, in this case, violated Canon 11
when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in
the published article and when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the
law and that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of
the law.

3. Further, Rule 11.05 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a
judge to the proper authorities. Bagabuyo, in this case, violated Rule 11.05
when he caused the holding of a press conference and submitted to a radio
interview to air out his grievances against Judge Tan.

4. Furthermore, Rule 13.02 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. Bagabuyo, in this case, violated Rule 13.02
when he made statements in the article, which were made while Criminal
Case No. 5144 was still pending in court.

5. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath

(Lawyer’s Oath), a patent disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment
unbecoming of an attorney. As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the
court, respondent should have set the example of observing and
maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers.

6. The Court find the Respondent guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and
Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of
violating the Lawyers Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) year effective upon finality of this Decision, with a STERN
WARNING that the repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.