COMELEC vs.

NOYNAY

Facts: COMELEC wanted to file an information against private respondents for having engaged in
partisan political activities in violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Respondent Judge Noynay motu
propio ordered the withdrawal of the cases and directed the COMELEC to file the cases before the
MTC on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the matter as the offenses were punishable
by less than 6 years imprisonment. Petitioner then filed this special civil action stating that the public
respondent (Nounay) erred in arguing that it is the MTC who has jurisdiction over election cases
pursuant to the OEC. In his answer, respondent argues that RA 7691 already divests the RTC of
jurisdiction to try and decide cases with less than 6 years imprisonment.

Issue: WON Judge Noynay was correct in his ruling to transfer the cases to the MTC.

Held: Under the OEC, the RTC is given exclusive and original jurisdiction to try and decide all election
related cases except those relating to the failure to register or to vote. As per our ruling in Morales vs.
Court of Appeals, the exclusive jurisdiction of various courts do not cover the criminal cases which by
specific provision of law fall within their respective jurisdiction regardless of the penalty
prescribed.Under the OEC, election offenses fall within the exception. RA 7691 is not a special law on
jurisdiction, it merely amended certain provisions of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, hence
the above cited law has no effect of repealing laws giving the RTC exclusive and original jurisdiction to
hear and decide specific cases. It is thus necessary to remind the Judge to be studious in his principles
of law. Counsel for petitioner must also be admonished for his utter carelessness in his reference to
his case in favor of his client. He made it look like the words he quoted from such a case were our
words when the fact is, that the words uttered by the counsel for petitioner is just part of a
memorandum of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision. He violated Canon 10, Rule 10.2 of
the CPR and must be admonished accordingly.

ALDEZ REALTY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Atty. Dacanay was found guilty of changing a material fact in a CA decision to gain a favorable
judgment from the SC, for which he was disbarred. He claimed in his MR that the words which were
changed were not made by him but by his client the President of Aldez Realty. Years later, Dacanay
filed a motion to lift disbarment stating his old age and that he has learned his lesson from his mistake.
He filed several motions to lift his disbarment pleading mercy from the court and how he struggles to
make both ends meet with him unable to practice law, his only known way to make a living.

Issue: WON Atty. Dacanay’s disbarment should be lifted.

Held: The period of 3 years in which Dacanay has been disbarred has obviously given him time to
reflect on the consequences of his actions and to redeem himself and to prove him worthy to become
a lawyer again. Accordingly, we lift his disbarment but sterly warn him to observe the highest
standards of mental fitness and to comply with the ethical standards of his profession.

FLORIDO vs. FLORIDO

Facts: Disbarment complaint against Atty. Florido filed by his wife for manufacturing and using a fake
CA order to gain custody of their children. Mrs. Florido is the legitimate spouse of Atty. Florido, but
they have been estranged and are living separately. They have 3 children all of whom are minors Atty.
Florido allegedly wanted to take the children by force with the aid of armed men and by virtue of that
fake CA resolution. Mrs. Florido asked help from the policemen, who helped ease the tension. Mrs.
Florido then heard of attempts to take her children away from her by Atty. Florido, by taking them to
Bacolod City. This was thwarted, prompting Atty. Florido to file a petition for habeas corpus for the
children, using again the fake CA order. He did not show up for the hearings, and the petition was
dismissed. A disbarment complaint was then filed by Mrs. Florido for using such fake CA order
allegedly giving him custody of their 3 children both within a court of law and outside of the same.
The IBP-CBD recommended a penalty of 2 year suspension, the IBP-BOG increased such to 6 years.

Issue: WON Atty. Florido is guilty of the crime charged against him, and WON he should be
suspended.

Held: In his answer to the complaint, Atty. Florido argued good faith in the utilization of the fake
document, and he alleged that he did not know that such was fake. Since he used the fake CA order
twice, it is presumed that he participated in its fabrication. Respondent violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01
& 10.02 of the CPR which mandates that lawyers observe candor and good faith towards the courts.
Furthermore, he also used foul, offensive language in his pleadings which degrade the integrity of the
legal profession. With this, he violated Sec.27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.Thus, we agree that the
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law, but the 6 year penalty is too harsh. We
hereby reduce it to 2 years.

DEL ROSARIO vs. CHINGCUANGCO

Facts: P (petitioner) obtained a parcel of land owned by R (respondent). It became a subject of

litigation and the Court of Agrarian Relations ordered P to be ejected from R’s land, and R to pay P the
excess rentals paid by P to him. The decision was affirmed by the CA. R filed a motion to execute such
judgment, which was opposed by P, on the ground that P has the right to retention over the land until
R indemnifies him. P then filed a civil action against R where a writ of injunction was filed against the
judge hearing the case. Then, both parties filed a motion to cite the other in contempt. P filed his
motion on the ground that R sought to eject him from the land he is staying, despite the writ of
injunction issued by the Court. R wanted to cite P in contempt for allegedly using a fictitious case to
obtain a favorable judgment from the court.

Issue: WON both parties should be cited in contempt.

Held: P did not commit any contemptuous act, as he did not cite any fictitious case. He cited the case
of Paz Ongsiako vs. Celestino Abad, and only committed a minor error in the citation of the said case
by a clear typographical error. The second contempt complaint filed by P against R also has no merit,
for at the time R sought to eject P out of his land, the writ of preliminary injunction had not been
carried out, and that it would appear that R gained possession of his land before the order restraining
the implementation of such writ. Thus, R cannot also be held in contempt. But, due to the premature
execution of the writ of injunction, P should be restored to the possession of his landholding until the
claim for payments are settled by the respondent court.

IN RE: ALMACEN

Facts: This is a petition to surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title filed by Atty. Almacen because he is
disgusted at the great injustice committed by the Supreme Court and its justices to his client. The
controversy stemmed from a civil action wherein Atty. Almacen was the counsel for the defendant.
He lost the case, and filed an MR. He served the opposing party with the notice of the MR, but did not
notify the same of the time and place for the hearing of such motion. Thus, it was dismissed by the
trial court and CA. The case was elevated to the SC, where it was denied via a minute resolution. Atty.
Almacen then expressed his disappointment by filing this present action and venting his
disappointment at the court in a contemptuous manner. The SC nonetheless gave due course to the
action and proceeded to hear the case. He was then required by the SC to show cause why
disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He then answered such order by repeating his
litany of complaints against the SC. He stated that he has lost all trust and confidence in the SC and
for which reason he is surrendering his lawyer’s certificate IN TRUST ONLY.

Issue: WON Atty. Almacen’s tirades are justifiable.

Held: We are quite aware of the criticisms expressed to the Court by denying petitions via minute
resolutions. We do this because if we were to tackle each and every case to us by writing a full blown
opinion on the matters of the cases before us, it would be physically impossible for the court to fulfill
its mandates as espoused in the Constitution and the law. True, the court is not immune from
criticism, and we allow citizens and lawyers alike to criticize our decisions and processes. But it must
be done with utmost respect towards the institution of the court as not to degrade public confidence
in our courts. If Atty. Almacen failed to convince the appellate court to review the lower court’s
judgment, he only has only himself to blame as it was his own negligence that caused the appeal to be
thrown out. In his relations with the courts, a lawyer cannot divide his personality as to be an
attorney on one side and a citizen on the other. Many cases have been decided against lawyers who
make derogatory statements against the courts and judges and justices. Accordingly, no comfort can
be taken in the fact that Atty. Almacen uttered his derogatory statements against the court after the
termination of the case. He can still be cited for contempt. Thus, Atty. Almacen should be disciplined
accordingly and is hereby suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.

QUE vs. ATTY. REVILLA

Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against Atty Revilla for abusing court processes by constantly
forum shopping, by filing multiple petitions in different fora in an attempt to obtain a favorable
judgment from the court. He also fraudulently appeared as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines
without being authorized to do so. He also allegedly represented 52 litigants without having the
authority to do so. He also uttered falsities against a deceased lawyer who worked on a case he was
currently handling. Respondent for his part, professed good faith in his actions. He denied all the
allegations against him. The IBP-CBD found all the charges against respondent to be meritorious and
that he be suspended for 2 years. The IBP-BOG reduced the penalty to 1 year suspension.

Issue: WON Atty. Revilla’s defense of good faith is tenable, and WON he should be penalized.

Held: We agree with the findings of the IBP, except for the penalty. It should be noted that this is not
respondent’s first complaint brought before us, and that this is not the only complaint filed against
him before us. We previously suspended him for 2 years, later reduced to 6 months. But despite our
leniency, he has shown no signs of having learned his lessons from his previous infractions. From the
evidence presented, it is clear that respondent went beyond lawful means in defending the interests
of his client. By his act of filing multiple actions and forum shopping, respondent violated Canon 12,
Rule 12.02 and 12.04 of the CPR. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes.The records also
reveal that respondent committed willful, intentional and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings he
filed with the lower courts. Thus, we find respondent liable under Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR for
violating the lawyer’s duty to observe candor and good faith with the courts. His acts are deplorable,
as he also knew that only the Solicitor General can legally represent the RP in cases for reversion of
land. He also violated the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized appearances. A lawyer
may not represent a litigant without authority from the latter or his/her representative. The defenses
he interposes are not tenable, and we find that he acted in bad faith in defending the interests of his
clients. Thus, it is but proper to impose on him the penalty of disbarment from the practice of law,
effective immediately.

ALCANTARA vs. DE VERA

Facts: Complaint for disbarment against Atty. De Vera for malpractice and misconduct. Atty. De Vera
was complainant’s counsel in a civil case which they won. He then garnished the bank deposits of his
client, but did not turn over the proceeds to her. After demand, Atty. De Vera refused to hand over
the proceeds saying that he paid large parts of the money to the judge and the rest were his
attorney’s fees. The IBP-CBD recommended a 1 year suspension. Then, following such ruling, Atty. De
Vera filed multiple cases in different fora against his former client, her family, her family corporation,
the investigating commissioner, etc. He denies the charges of barratry, forum shopping, etc.

Issue: WON respondent committed malpractice and misconduct.

Held: We agree with the IBP recommendation.Respondent clearly committed malpractice and
misconduct when he failed to give complainant the award for garnishment awarded to her by the
court. He also committed misconduct when he filed 12 cases against those responsible for his
suspension as well as re-filed cases that have already been dismissed. This act was clearly meant to
overwhelm his client and her family to teach them a lesson for filing the administrative complaint
against him. The cases filed by respondent against his former client involved information acquired
through confidential means, such as the attorney-client relationship. Such is a violation of the Canons
of the CPR which cannot be tolerated. Thus, respondent Atty. De Vera is DISBARRED from the practice
of law.

NUEZ vs. ATTY. RICAFORT

Facts: Disbarment complaint against Atty. Ricafort for serious misconduct. Petitioner authorized
respondent to sell her 2 parcels of land which he successfully did.They agreed that respondent was to
receive 10% of the proceeds of the sale as commission. But, respondent failed to give petitioner the
proceeds of the sale. Thus, petitioner filed a case for collection of money which she won. Respondent
appealed to the CA where his appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee.
Respondents then issued 4 postdated checks to give to petitioner allegedly as payment for her claims,
but these were dishonored by the bank for having insufficient funds. Thus, a criminal complaint for
violation of BP 22 was filed. Respondent admitted to his acts of issuing postdated checks, but he says
that he was not notified that the checks were dishonored. The SC required respondent to comment
on the allegations against him, but he failed to do so despite being given an extension of time to do
the same. Thus, he was cited for contempt. The IBP then recommended a 1 year suspension for
respondent for grave misconduct.

Issue: WON the IBP recommendation is correct.

Held: Respondent had no intention to pay the money claims due to him. He filed an appeal with the
CA only to be dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee in an attempt to prolong the agony
of the complainant thus, bad faith is evident in him. Aside from Canon 1, Rule 1.01, respondent also
violated Canon 12 Rules 12.03 and 12.04 of the CPR which states that lawyers should avoid any action
which would unduly delay a case. Thus, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct, but we feel that the
penalty recommended for him is too light, in light of the accusations hurled against him. Thus, Atty.
Ricafort is INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED from the practice of law.

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

Facts: Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, who allegedly notarized several documents on different dates and
failed to make the proper notation regarding the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) of the complainant,
enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register and make and execute the
certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized. On the other
hand, Atty. Rafanan admitted having administered the oath but believed that non-notation of the
Resident Certificates as well as not entering the details of the notarized documents in the notarial
register was allowed. Notation of Resident Certificates are applied only to documents acknowledged
by a notary public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and
other government offices. He further asserted that this was a popular practice among notaries public
in Nueva Ecija, some of whom were older practitioners.

Issue: WON Atty. Rafanan’s defenses are tenable.

Held: The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public. They are required to
certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them has presented the proper
residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue
and date as part of such certification. They are also required to maintain and keep a notarial register;
to enter therein all instruments notarized by them; and to give to each instrument executed, sworn to,
or acknowledged before them a number corresponding to the one in their register and to state
therein the page or pages of their register, on which the same is recorded. Failure to perform these
duties would result in the revocation of their commission as notaries public. These formalities are
mandatory and cannot be simply neglected, considering the degree of importance and evidentiary
weight attached to notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their commissions are
presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements.It is intolerable that he did away with the
basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad
example of others is not an acceptable justification for breaking the law. Disbarment, however,
cannot be granted considering the nature of the infraction and the absence of deceit on the part of
Atty. Rafanan. A fine of P3, 000 is imposed with a warning that similar infractions in the future will be
dealt with more severely.

FIL-GARCIA INC. vs. HERNANDEZ

Facts: Complaint against respondent, Atty. Hernandez for malpractice, gross misconduct and violation
of the lawyer’s oath. Complainant entered into an agreement with another person for the
construction of condo units. Controversy arose between the two parties regarding the payment of
dues. Thus, complainant filed a case for collection of money against the former, which it won. But on
appeal, the CA reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of the defendant. But instead of filing for a
MR, respondent filed 3 successive motions of extension with the court citing various reasons. The
court denied respondent’s MR as well as the successive motions for extension. Respondent admitted
informing his client only 7 months after the decision reached finality. Aggrieved, complainant files this
administrative complaint for disbarment. In his answer, respondent argues that filing for motion for
extension of time is allowed, that he did not make an erroneous appeal, and that he did not
deliberately intend to cause damage to the complainant by his belatedly informing his client of the
status of his case. The IBP Commissioner recommended his disbarment, the IBP-BOG reduced the
penalty to 6 month suspension.

Issue: WON respondent’s action to file 3 successive motions for extension and his act of informing his
client of the status of the cases belatedly were ethical.

Held: Respondent violated Canon 18.03 of the CPR which states that lawyers should not neglect the
cases assigned to him. Since it took 7 months for him to inform his client of the development of his
cases, he is guilty of violating this Canon. We agree with the recommendation of the IBP-BOG that the
penalty of 6 month suspension is warranted.

ATTY. ANDAMO vs. JUDGE LARIDA

Facts: Complainant charges Judge Larida and two others of gross ignorance of the law for delaying the
resolution of cases pending before his court and for the non- issuance of the certificates of sale in a
extra-judicial foreclosure proceeding. Judge Larida denies delaying the resolution of complainant’s
petitions for the issuance of writs of possession and that he was unaware of unacted proceedings
pending before the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court also avers that his undockedted
petitions for extrajudicial foreclosure had long been denied in a previous case. The investigating
committee, headed by a CA Justice,recommended that all three respondents (Larida, Calma and Ruiz)
be exonerated of the charges against them, saying that the charges filed by complainant were
unfounded and unsubstantiated. In fact, evidence shows that contrary to complainant’s claims, the
respondents strictly adhered to law and jurisprudence in the exercise of their functions.

Issue: WON Atty. Anadamo’s cases are baseless and WON Judge Larida et al. are liable.

Held: It is clear from the evidence gathered that Judge Larida denied complainant’s petition for
extrajudicial foreclosure as not all the requirements were met. As to Atty. Calma and Ruiz, they too
must be exonerated as it is true that the records show that complainant’s petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure had been denied in a previous case, and after such denial, no MR was ever filed to assail
such decision, thus the decision had already become final. Clearly, this is a baseless complaint. A
lawyer who files a baseless complaint should be sanctioned as he only fails in his duty as an officer of
the court, and he only adds to the workload of the judiciary. Thus, the complaint of Atty. Andamo is
DISMISSED for utter lack of merit and he is directed to SHOW CAUSE why no disciplinary sanctions
should be imposed on him.

WICKER vs. ARCANGEL

Facts: Wicker brought a suit for annulment of certain deeds of sale before the chambers of Judge
Arcangel. His counsel, Atty. Rayos, sought the inhibition of Judge Arcangel because his assignment
was manipulated by a lawyer who has connections in the JBC. Both parties were then required to
show cause why they should not be cited for contempt. Atty. Rayos claimed that he was acting merely
in a representative capacity. Finding their explanations unsatisfactory, Judge Arcangel cited both of
them in direct contempt, imposing on each of them a five day imprisonment and a P100.00 fine. The
aggrieved parties appealed to the SC, contending that Judge Arcangel committed a grave abuse of
discretion in citing them for contempt. They argue that a motion to seek for the inhibition of a judge
in a case is not contemptuous. In his answer, Judge Arcangel aruges that his assignment was not
manipulated and that he was appointed as a judge in the proper, lawful way and not because of
connections.

Issue: WON the act of Judge Arcangel to cite petitioners in contempt was correct.

Held: We sustain the judgement of Judge Arcangel citing both parties in direct contempt of court. The
allegations they brought were derogatory and constituted an unwarranted criticism of the
administration of justice in this country. As to Atty. Rayos’ defense that he was acting merely in a
representative capacity, we find such argument untenable as the CPR mandates him to observe
candor and give the court its due respect and to advise his client to do the same. But then, it is shown
that Judge Arcangel is willing to dispense with the five day prison sentence and just let them off with
a fine. Thus, considering the circumstances, the order of contempt is MODIFIED by deleting the 5 day
prison sentence and increasing the fine from P100.00 each to P200.00 each.

BACULI vs. BATTUNG

Facts: Complaint for disbarment filed by Judge Baculi against Atty. Battung for violation of Canons 11
and 12 of the CPR. Judge Baculi claims that during a hearing, Atty. Battung shouted at him. Judge
Baculi cited him for contempt, but undaunted, Atty. Battung shouted at the Judge again, prompting
Judge Baculi to cite him once again in contempt. Atty. Battung threatened to file a case of gross
ignorance against Judge Baculi. According to Judge Baculi, Atty. Battung also filed dilatory pleadings in
a Civil case.. After due investigation, the IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating Canon 11 of the
CPR which mandates that lawyers observe candor and give the courts its due respect, but dismissed
the allegation for violation of Canon 12 of the CPR due to insufficiency of evidence. For his
misdemeanor, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Battung be suspended from the practice of law
for 6 months. The IBP-BOG modified the recommendation to a mere reprimand.

Issue: WON Atty. Battung’s actions against Judge Baculi are justifiable.

Held: Respondent acted in a manner tending to erode public confidence in the legal profession when
he threatened Judge Baculi. Thus, we fully agree that Atty. Battung should be sanctioned. But the
penalties recommended by both the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP-BOG are too light.
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

JUDGE CERVANTES vs. ATTY. SABIO

Facts: Petitioner was a presiding Judge where ejectment cases were filed against the clients of
respondent. Respondent filed motions for petitioner to inhibit from the case on the basis that the
company which seeks the ejectment of his clients gave the Judge a house and lot allegedly as a bribe
for him to rule in their favor. The motions were denied. After petitioner’s retirement, respondent
sought an investigation into the alleged bribery concerning petitioner. To support his charge,
respondent presented a sworn statement where he alleges that Judge Cervantes would receive
P500.00 for each favorable decision in favor of the company who seeks the ejectment of Atty. Sabio’s
clients. The OCA ruled to dismiss the charges against Judge Cervantes as the OCA found the complaint
to be baseless and that the complaint was filed after the petitioner’s retirement. Thus, petitioner filed
a disbarment complaint against respondent based on the ground that respondent knowingly filed a
baseless suit against petitioner, in violation of the proscription in the CPR against the institution of
groundless suits. The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating Canons
10-12 of the CPR and that he be fined P5,000.00 for his misdemeanors. The IBP-BOG reduced the
penalty to a mere reprimand.

Issue: WON Atty. Sabio’s complaint against Judge Cervantes are meritorious.

Held: Respondent was aware that what he filed against petitioner was a groundless suit, thus he must
be sanctioned. It is the Court’s duty to investigate the truth behind charges against lawyers and
judges, but it is also our duty to protect them from unfounded suits intended to harass them.
Respondent is therefore fined P5,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any
similar act will be dealt with more severely.

MACEDA vs. OMBUDSMAN

Facts: Petitioner seeks the review of the following orders of the Ombudsman for denying his various
MR’s and directing him to submit counter-evidences in his defense. In an affidavit submitted before
the Ombudsman, private respondent alleged that petitioner falsified his Certificate of Service. On the
other hand, petitioner contends that he had been given by the SC a 90 day extension to decide the
cases in his chambers. He also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to hear and decide
his case as he was charged in connection with his official duties as a judge, thus, he can only be
investigated by the SC.

Issue: WON a Judge who falsifies a certificate of service is liable and WON the Ombudsman has
jurisdiction to hear and decide a case against Judges.
Held: We disagree with petitioner’s first argument. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and inefficiency, and criminally liable under
the RPC for his felonious act. But we agree with his second contention that the Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction to try and decide his case as he is under the control and supervision of the SC, for he was
charged in connection with his official duties as a Judge. Thus, only the SC can oversee a judge’s and
court employee’s compliance with the law and take the proper administrative action if they commit
any violation. Thus, where a complaint against a Judge arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on the said complaint and refer the same to the SC for determination.

LANTORIA vs. ATTY. BUNYI

Facts: Administrative complaint against Atty. Bunyi for alleged acts of graft and corruption, dishonesty,
and corruption of a judge. Atty. Bunyi is alleged to have unethically prepared draft decisions which he
submitted to a Judge through the complainant. He wrote 3 letters to the complainant apologizing for
the delay. Respondent does not deny writing the said letters, and he apologized for whatever
inconvenience it caused. But then, complainant could no longer find the letters, and thus could no
longer substantiate his claims against Atty. Bunyi. Thus, he withdrew from the complaint.
Notwithstanding this however, the OSG recommended that the merits on the case can still be decided,
granting that Atty. Bunyi admitted to such impropriety.

Issue: WON Atty. Bunyi is liable for drafting such decisions for a judge.

Held: By drafting such decisions, Atty. Bunyi violated Canon 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
(now Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) which prohibits lawyers from engaging in
any act which may tend to influence the court or a judge in his/her decision making. Thus, Atty. Bunyi
was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO

Facts: Administrative complaint for the suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo for issuing statements in the
media against Judge Manuel Tan while a case was pending. There was a criminal case for murder, but
then the Judge assigned to the case denied the demurrer of evidence submitted by the prosecution as
being insufficient to prove the crime of murder. Thus, a bail bond was recommended. The previous
Judge (Judge Buyser) inhibited himself from the case and the case was raffled to a new judge (Judge
Tan) who also recommended a bail bond for the accused. Respondent then caused the publication of
an article which contained derogatory language against Judge Tan for recommending bail for the
accused despite the original charge for murder being non-bailable. Respondent was directed to show
cause why he should not be cited for contempt fro the publication of said articles. Respondent
refused to answer, thus he was cited for contempt. He appealed such ruling with the CA. Despite this
order citing him for contempt, respondent continued lambasting Judge Tan in media interviews. He
was then again directed to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. He answered that he
was only interviewed by his journalist friend, and that his statements were protected by his
constitutional right to freedom of expression and speech. Finding his explanations unsatisfactory, he
was ordered suspended from the practice of law and imprisoned for 90 days. The Bar Confidant
recommended that the suspension issued by the trial court be implemented and that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Issue: WON the trial court can suspend a lawyer, and WON Atty. Bagabuyo’s acts against Judge Tan
merit suspension.

Held: The trial court is empowered to suspend a lawyer from the practice of law. The Court approves
the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant By issuing derogatory statements against a
judge to the media, Respondent violated Canon 11, Rule 11.05 of the CPR when he held a press
conference where he made statements against the said order of Judge Tan and when he.failed to
resort to the proper judicial authorities to address his grievances against Judge Tan. He also violated
Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the CPR which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case to arouse public opinion for or against a party. Thus, respondent Atty.
Bagabuyo was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.

FOODSPHERE INC. vs. ATTY. MAURICIO

Facts: Foodsphere Inc. (CDO) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Mauricio for grossly immoral
conduct and for violation of the lawyer’s oath. A customer found worms in the liver spread of CDO.
They filed a complaint with the BFAD where they asked for P150K in damages which the company
refused to pay, saying it was exorbitant. They instead offered to pay for medical expenses which the
complainants refused. CDO then found an article in respondent’s tabloid which contained maligning
articles against them. Respondent then offered to settle the case and prepared a document for such.
The case was later dismissed. Respondent then sent CDO an advertising contract where CDO would
advertise their products in respondent’s tabloids for a fee. CDO agreed. Respondent then continued
maligning CDO in his radio program and published several articles against CDO in his tabloids still on
the issue of the liver spread with worms. CDO then filed a libel complaint against respondent as well
as administrative complaints seeking his disbarment from the practice of law. The Investigating
Commissioner and the IBP both recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for 2 years.

Issue: WON Atty. Mauricio is laible for his multiple tirades against Foodsphere Inc. (CDO).

Held: The Court adopts the findings of the IBP. In constantly maligning CDO through various media
platforms, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR which mandates lawyers to refrain from
any unlawful, deceitful or immoral conduct. He violated such Canon when he took advantage of the
complaint against CDO to advance his interests and obtain funds for his Foundation to seek
sponsorships and advertisements for his tabloids and TV programs. He also violated Canon 13, Rule
13.02 of the CPR, which mandates 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 when he issued
statements against CDO in his radio program and when he caused publication of several derogatory
articles against CDO in his tabloids. He also violated Canon 8 Rule 8.01 of the CPR which mandates
that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy towards his colleagues and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel and that lawyers shall not use abusive or inappropriate language in
his dealings with others. Thus, for these violations of the CPR Atty. Mauricio is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for 3 years.