Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, former Senior State Prosecutor | Adm. Case No. 7006 | 9 October 2007

Facts:

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. 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.

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.

Case was transferred to Judge Tan, who fixed the amount of bail at P40,000. Instead of availing of judicial remediess, 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.”

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. 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.

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).

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.

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.

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:

Was 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:

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

Canon 11 mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Bagabuyo 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.

Rule 11.05 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities. Bagabuyo 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.

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

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.

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.