CANON 13 CASES

Elmo Magalona and Kelvin Culajara

Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo, former senior state prosecutor, adm

case no. 7006, October 9, 2007
A.M. No. 7006

Facts: This administrative case stemmed from the events of the Criminal case
proceeding originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser. 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. The counsel of the defense filed a Motion to fix the
amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty 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
of bail under the Rules of Court. Judge Buser inhibited himself from further trying
the case because of the harsh insinuation of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio 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.

Respondent appealed to the CA. Instead of availing himself only of judicial

remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order
granting to the accused in the issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article,
entitled Senior prosecutor lambast Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail
out.

The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of the article to appear
in court to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for
the publication of the article which degrade the court and its presiding judge with its
lies and misrepresentation.

Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but
refused to answer whether he made the statement 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 the Rules of Court.

Issue: WON Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer?

Ruling: YES. Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to
appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes
upon them certain obligations. The court held that he 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 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the
proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent
also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and 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.

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. Montecillo v. 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 and 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, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.

Foodsphere, Inc. v. Atty. Mauricio, Jr., AC no. 7199, July 22, 2009

Facts: A certain Alberto Cordero purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela

City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. 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. This was complained
before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the petitioner,
the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their
complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent,
Atty. Mauricio, Jr., 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.

Complainant 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 the time of the filing of the present
administrative complaint. 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.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

Ruling: YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.
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.

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. The 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 and the fundamental 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. Respondent defied
said status quo order, despite his (respondents) 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, and 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.

Bautista v. Rebueno, G.R. No. L-46117, February 22, 1978

Facts: This mandamus proceeding seeks to compel respondent Judge Alfredo S.

Rebueno of the Court of First Instance of Naga City, Branch IV, to continue trying a
civil case assigned to his sala, the issue raised being that his Order disqualifying
himself amounted to a grave abuse of discretion based as it was on a ground other
than that provided for in the Rules of Court. To state the proposition is to indicate
the weakness of the stand taken by petitioner, the defendant in such civil case for
he would ignore the second paragraph of Rule 137: "A judge may, in the exercise of
his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons, other than those mentioned above.... . Notwithstanding an opposition filed
by petitioner on the ground that the reason alleged is not one of those provided for
by law respondent Judge issued an Order disqualifying himself and thereafter denied
a motion for its reconsideration.

The Order in question reads as follows: "This refers to the motion for inhibition filed
by the plaintiff and the opposition thereto by the defendant. The Court knows from
reliable sources that the defendant has been doubting the actuations of this Court
as biased on the belief that the Presiding Judge is related to the plaintiff. Similarly,
however, from reliable sources the Court also knows that the plaintiff is doubting his
actuations because of the defendant's alleged utterances that he will surely win this
case. These circumstances has placed the Court in a very unpleasant and untenable
position, because either way he acts in this case, whether in favor or against the
plaintiff or vice-versa, his actuation will always be tainted and beset with doubt and
misgivings which is highly detrimental to the good name and integrity of the Court.

Issue: May the Judge and the lawyer be held liable for violating Canon 13.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibilty

Ruling: Yes. Canon 13.01 states that A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges. The Court ruled that such attitude may subject both the judge and the
lawyer to suspicion. It is not, however, incumbent on a lawyer to refuse professional
employment in a case because it may be heard by a judge who is his relative,
compadre or former colleague. The responsibility is on the judge not to sit in a case
unless he is both free from bias and from the appearance thereof.

Austria v. Masaquel, G.R. No. L-22536, August 31, 1967

Facts: FACTS Asturia was the plaintiff in a civil case involving 3 parcels of land in
Pangasinan in which Judge Masaquel ruled in his favor. Sometime later the
defendant in the civil case hired a new lawyer in the person of Atty. Sicat, a former
associate of Judge Masaquel when he was still in the practice of law. Atty. Sicat then
filed a superdeas bond to stay the execution of the sheriff and a motion for new
trial, all of which was granted by Judge Masaquel. Before the opening of one of the
court sessions, Atty Macaraeg, lawyer of Asturia saw Judge Masaquel to his chamber
and verbally transmitted to him the request that he inhibit himself on the ground
that Atty. Sicat was his associate. The Judge denied the request pointing out that it
was not one of the grounds for disqualification of a judge as provided in the rules of
court. During the court session, he asked Asturia if he had authorized Atty.
Macaraeg to approach him in his chambers and whether he doubts the integrity of
the judge to decide fairly and impartially because the lawyer of the defending party
was his associate, Asturia answered them all in the positive stating that he heard
rumors that the defendant was boasting that he would definitely win because of his
lawyer. The Judge then declared Asturia in contempt. The Judge considered his
actuations offensive, insulting and lack of respect to the court. He was ordered to
pay 50 pesos. Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not Austria acted in violation of Canon 13

Ruling: NO. While the court consider it improper for a litigant or counsel to see a
judge in chambers and talk to him about a matter related to the case pending in the
court of said judge, it is not an act of impropriety which tends to influence, or gives
the appearance of influencing the Court to see the judge in his chamber and
requested him to disqualify himself on the ground which the respondent judge
might consider just and valid. The circumstances that led the respondent judge to
declare the petitioner in direct contempt of court do not indicate any deliberate
design on the part of the petitioner to disrespect respondent judge. The petitioner
has not misbehaved in court or in the presence of the respondent judge so as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings. He simply expressed his sincere feeling under
the circumstances. Certainly, any person is entitled to his opinion about a judge,
whether that opinion is flattering or not. A judge as a public servant should not be
so thinskinned or sensitive as to feel hurt or offended if a citizen expresses an
honest opinion about him.

In Re Lozano [54 Phil. 801 July 24, 1930]

Facts: Sometime ago, the complaint of an attorney against a Judge of First Instance
was by resolution of this court referred to the Attorney-General for investigation,
report, and recommendation. The Solicitor-General was designated to conduct the
investigation of the charges, and pursuant to said designation, proceeded to the
municipality of Capiz, Province of Capiz, to take the testimony of certain witnesses.
The investigation was conducted secretly, as is customary in cases of this character.
Notwithstanding, on April 29, 1930, El Pueblo, a newspaper published in Iloilo and
edited by Severino Lozano, printed an account of the investigation written by
Anastacio Quevedo, said to be an employee in the office of the Judge under
investigation.

The article purports to give an account of the evidence of the different witnesses.
Regarding this account, the complainant attorney alleges that the facts therein
contained are false, malicious, and untrue and that said report took sides with
the respondent judge . . . and expressed an opinion as to the merits of the same,
with the object undoubtedly, to influence the action of the investigator and the
public in general and to obstruct, embarrass or impede the course of the present
investigation. In the same connection, the Attorney-General states that the
newspaper report does not contain a fair and true account of the facts disclosed at
the investigation, . . . creating a wrong impression in the mind of the public and
tending to influence improperly the action of this court in the said pending matter.
Under the circumstances, the observations of the Attorney-General must necessarily
be accepted as true.

Issue: Whether or not Severino Lozano and Anastacio Quevedo are guilty of
contempt of court.

Held: Yes. The Court ordered each to pay a nominal sum of twenty pesos (P20)
within fifteen (15) days. The rule is well established that the newspaper publications
tending to impede, obstruct, embarass, or influence the courts in administering
justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitute criminal contempt which is
summarily punishable by the courts. The rule is otherwise after the cause is ended.
It is also regarded as an interference with the work of the courts to publish any
matters which their policy requires should be kept private, as for example the
secrets of the jury room, or proceedings in camera.
The liberty of the citizen must be preserved in all of its completeness. But license or
abuse of liberty of the press and of the citizen should not be confused with liberty in
its true sense. As important as is the maintenance of the Judiciary. Respect for the
Judiciary cannot be had if persons are privileged to scorn a resolution of the court
adopted for good purposes, and if such persons are to be permitted by
subterranean means of diffuse inaccurate accounts of confidential proceedings to
the embarrassment of the parties and the courts.

Eduardo Martelino, et al., vs. Jose Alejandro, et al.

Facts: Major Eduardo Martelino (alias Abdul Latif Martelino) of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, and the officers and men under him, were charged under the court-
martial proceedings for violation of the Articles of War as a result of the alleged
shooting of some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando training in Corregidor.
Martelino assailed the court-martials jurisdiction considering that a complaint for
frustrated murder had already been filed against him. Moreover, Martelino also
sought for the disqualification of the President of the general court-martial, Col. Jose
Alejandro, after the latter admitted that he read newspaper stories of the Corregidor
incident. Martelino contended that the case had received such an amount of
publicity in the press and other news media and in fact was being exploited for
political purposes in connection with the presidential election as to imperil his right
to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court gave due course to Martelinos petition and restrained the
court-martial from proceeding with the case. Meanwhile, Alejandro and others
assert that despite the publicity which the case had received, no proof has been
presented showing that the court-martials presidents fairness and impartiality
have been impaired. As already stated, the petitioner Martelino challenged the
court-martial president on the ground that newspaper accounts of what had come
to be referred to as the "Corregidor massacre" might unduly influence the trial of
their case. The petitioner's counsel referred to a news item appearing in the July 29,
1969 issue of the Daily Mirror and cited other news reports to the effect that "coffins
are being prepared for the President (of the Philippines) in Jolo," that according to
Senator Aquino "massacre victims were given sea burial," and that Senator
Magsaysay, opposition Vice President candidate, had gone to Corregidor and "found
bullet shells." In addition the petitioners cite in this Court a Manila Times editorial of
August 26, 1969 which states that "The Jabidah [code name of the training
operations] issue was bound to come up in the course of the election campaign. The
opposition could not possibly ignore an issue that is heavily loaded against the
administration." The petitioners argue that under the circumstances they could not
expect a just and fair trial and that, in overruling their challenge for cause based on
this ground, the general court-martial committed a grave abuse of discretion.

Issue: Whether the publicity given to the case against the petitioners was such as
to prejudice their right to a fair trial?

Held: No. In contrast the spate of publicity in this case before us did not focus on
the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the responsibility of the Government for
what was claimed to be a "massacre" of Muslim trainees. If there was a "trial by
newspaper" at all, it was not of the petitioners but of the Government. Absent here
is a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the accused from massive
publicity encouraged by those connected with the conduct of the trial 16 either by a
failure to control the release of information or to remove the trial to another venue
or to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have subsided. Indeed
we cannot say that the trial of the petitioners was being held under circumstances
which did not permit the observance of those imperative decencies of procedure
which have come to be identified with due process.

At all events, even granting the existence of "massive" and "prejudicial" publicity,
since the petitioners here do not contend that the respondents have been unduly
influenced but simply that they might be by the "barrage" of publicity, we think that
the suspension of the court-martial proceedings has accomplished the purpose
sought by the petitioners' challenge for cause, by postponing the trial of the
petitioner until calmer times have returned. The atmosphere has since been cleared
and the publicity surrounding the Corregidor incident has so far abated that we
believe the trial may now be resumed in tranquility.
Emilio Strebel vs. Jose Figueras

Strebel subleased part of his lot in Sta. Mesa to Standard Vacuum Oil
Company who constructed Mobilgas Station operated by a
partnership Eustaquio & Co. Then Under-Secretary of Labor Jose
Figueras wanted to build a drainage through the lots of Figueras and Stebel
by using his social and political influence he managed to influence Assistant
City Fiscal of Manila Cornelio S. Ruperto to write an opinion granting his right.
Stebel and his partner Primo Eustaquio protested. But the was seemingly
abandoned before the property rights could be violated
That due to personal conflicts his wife's son-in-law Manuel Hernandez was
removed form his position
September 15, 1949: Figueras use of his official and political influence
over Ruperto and Director of Labor Felipe E. Jose to institute a Criminal Case
against Strebel and his partner Eustaquio for allegedly compelling several
employees to work more than 8 hours a day but was dismissed for lackof
prima facie evidence
RTC: Dismissed the complaint of Emilio Strebel against Jose Figueras, Felipe E.
Jose and Cornelio S. Ruperto
Plaintiff alleges that, "with a view to further injuring" him "and besmirching
his good name in the community and waging a cleavage in the harmonious
relation beteen Eustaquio & Co. and its laborers," defendatns Felipe E. Jose
and Cornelio S. Ruperto issued a press statement to the effect that plaintifff
Strebel and his partner, Eustaquio had flagantly violated the provisions of the
Eight-Hour Law and that said Criminal Case no. 11005 had been dismissed by
the court on a flimsy ground; and that this statement had "caused moral and
mental suffering to the herein plaintiff and damage to his business in the
amount of P5,000.00," which he prays "that the defendants, particularly
Felipe Jose and Cornelio S. Ruperto be condemned jointly and severally to
pay" to him.

Issue: Was there violation of Canon 13 due to Jose and Rupertos issuance of press
statement after the dismissal of the case?

Held: No. This news item mentions, neither the number of the case referred to, nor
the names of the persons accused therein. Moreover, it merely contains a criticism
of the action taken by the court. The reference, therein imputed to the Director of
Labor, to the flagrant violation of the eight-hour labor law by the accused, was a
mere reiteration of the theory of the Bureau of Labor, which the prosecution had
adopted by filing the information in said case. Being a matter of court record, which
had been taken up at the hearing held publicly, and settled in a decision already
promulgated, said theory was open for public consumption, and, hence, an allusion
thereto or statement thereof, in order to justify said criticism, is not actionable.
Again, said allusion was not made by defendant Ruperto, who, the news item shows,
said nothing against the plaintiff. It is apparent, therefore, that as a whole, the
allegations made in support of the second cause of action do not establish a right of
action against him. Moreover, there is absolutely no allegation under said cause of
action connecting defendant Figueras with the statement already referred to or
rendering him liable therefor.
De Bumanglag vs. Bumanglag

Esteban T. Bumanglad, the respondent, was found by the Court in its decision of
September 24, 1973 guilty of gross immoral conduct and ordered his suspension
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years;

Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration but the same were denied;

As a result of such denial, the respondent wrote a petition to the President of the
Philippines that he promulgate(s) a decree that the order of suspension by the
Supreme Court be set aside and that your humble self be allowed to become an
active member of the New Society.

The respondent alleged in the same petition that he was deprived of due process of
law;

The Clerk of Court, by way of an indorsement from the Assistant

Executive Secretary, received a copy of the petition and was requested to
comment and/or appropriate action on the subject matter;

However, in a subsequent letter to the President the respondent retracted and

acknowledged his non observance of protocol of separation of powers;

In the end, the respondent asked for an apology from the members of the
Honorable Court.

Issue 1: Whether or not respondent may be disciplined for gross ignorance of the
law and of the Constitution in not observing the protocol of separation of power by
asking the President to set aside by decree the decision of the Court imposing
suspension upon the respondent.

Held: Respondent is hereby administered a reprimand for grossignorance of the law

and of the Constitution in having asked the President to set aside by decree the
Court's decision which suspended him for two years from the practice of law, with
warning that the commission of any transgression in the future of his oath and
duties as a member of the bar will be severely dealt with.

Issue 2: Whether or not a decision duly promulgated by the Supreme Court may be
set aside by a Presidential Decree

Held: Since respondent has apologized for his "big mistake" and now appreciates
that under the fundamental principle of separation of powers enshrined in both the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions, a decision of this Court may not be set aside by the
President, the Court is disposed to view his misconduct and/or ignorance with
liberality and will administer a reprimand with warning of severe action on any
future transgressions, considering respondent's unenviable record.