REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING et.al.

, petitioners,
vs.
HON. DOLORES S. ESPAÑOL, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, respondent
G.R. No. 133090 , January 19, 2001
FACTS:
During the court proceedings, both the plaintiffs and their legal counsel were in attendance, and there was an
individual operating a video camera, capturing images of the proceedings. This person was taking photos of
the proceedings while Attorney Rexie Efren Bugaring, was making manifestation to the effect that he was
ready to mark his documentary evidence in connection with his Motion to hold the Deputy Register of
Deeds of Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion, in contempt of court. Upon noticing this situation, the Court raised
a concern, prompting Attorney Bugaring to clarify that he did not instruct his assistant to take photographs.
He explained that they had brought the camera with them because they had just come from a prior event.
Subsequently, Attorney Bugaring asked his assistant to leave after the Court expressed dissatisfaction with
their actions, pointing out that even though court proceedings were open to the public and officially
recorded, taking photographs without prior permission amounted to an abuse of court discretion. When the
respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion, manifested that he needed the services of counsel and
immediately appointed Attorney Barzaga to represent him, the court resumed the proceedings. During the
second call, Attorney Bugaring insisted on presenting his documentary evidence, despite Attorney Barzaga
still seeking permission to submit a written pleading on behalf of his client. As a result, the court declared
Attorney Bugaring out of order. Subsequently, Attorney Bugaring served a three-day imprisonment sentence
and paid a fine of P3,000 as ordered by the court. After completing his sentence and paying the fine,
Attorney Bugaring filed a motion to have the court's order declared null and void. He argued that he had not
shown contempt towards the court since he consistently addressed the court with respect using phrases like
"your Honour please." He also contended that his emotional responses during the proceedings were driven
by his dedication to advocating for his client's case. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the
Regional Trial Court but ruled that the excess amount of P1,000 should be refunded.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in citing petitioner in direct contempt of court
Ruling: No. a. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation
of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and
consequently, to the due administration of justice. b. As regards court’s legal basis for citing contempt of
court, and in light of Atty. Bugaring defense of being polite and using the phrase “your Honour please”
during the proceedings, the court ruled that his deference to the court in consistently addressing respondent
judge as “your Honour please” is belied by his behaviour therein: i. Veiled threat to file a petition for
certiorari against the trial court (in violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11) ii. The hurled uncalled for accusation
that the respondent Judge was partial in favour of the other party (in violation of Rule 11.04, Canon 11) 2 iii.
Behaving without due regard to the trial court’s order to maintain order in the proceedings (in disregard of
Canon 1) iv. Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time was making
representation in behalf of the other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not allowed to
further a word in edgewise (in violation of Canon 8 and Canon 22) v. Refusal of petitioner to allow the
Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, through counsel, to exercise his right to be heard (in violation
of Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution and Canon 18, and Canon 12) c. Regarding counsel’s argument
of being carried away in an effort to espouse the case of his client, the CA stated that: “A lawyer should not
be carried away in espousing his client’s cause – he should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bound
to exert every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice”. d.
The CA however directed the RTC to return P1,000 to Atty. Bugaring as it exceeded the ceiling set by SC
Admin. Circ. No. 22-95 of P2,000. RULING: The assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. The RTC is

1
ordered to RETURN to petitioner, Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000 out of the original fine of
P3,000