1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.133090.January19,2001]

REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING AND ROYAL BECHTEL BUILDERS,

INC., petitioners, vs. HON. DOLORES S. ESPAOL, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 90, Imus,
Cavite,respondent.
DECISION
DELEON,JR.,J.:

BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarioftheDecisiondatedMarch6,1998oftheCourtof
Appeals[1] affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite,
declaringpetitionerRexieEfrenA.Bugaringguiltyindirectcontemptofcourt.
The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing held on December 5, 1996 of Civil
CaseNo.126696entitledRoyalBecthel[2]Builders,Inc.vs.SpousesLuisAlvaranandBeatrizAlvaran,
etal.,forAnnulmentofSaleandCertificatesofTitle,SpecificPerformanceandDamageswithPrayerfor
Preliminary Injunctionand/or Temporary Restraining Orderin the sala of respondent judge Dolores S.
EspaoloftheRegionalTrialCourtofCavite,Branch90,Imus,Cavite.
Pursuant to a motion filed by the previous counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc., the trial court
issued an order on February 27, 1996 directing the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite to
annotateatthebackofcertaincertificatesoftitleanoticeoflispendens.BeforetheRegisterofDeedsof
theProvinceofCavitecouldcomplywithsaidorder,thedefendantSpousesAlvaranonApril15,1996,
filedamotiontocancellispendens.OnJuly19,1996,petitioner,thenewlyappointedcounselofRoyal
BechtelBuilders,Inc.,filedanoppositiontothemotiontocancellispendens.OnAugust16,1996,the
motion to cancel lis pendens was granted by the court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was opposed by the defendants. On November 5, 1996, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to
Resolve,andonNovember6,1996,filedaRejoindertoOppositionandaMotionforContemptofCourt.
[3]

During the hearing of the motion for contempt of court held on December 5, 1996, the following
incidenttranspired:
ATTY.BUGARING:Fortheplaintiff,yourHonor,weareready.
ATTYCORDERO:Sameappearanceforthedefendant,yourHonor.
ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor please, we are ready with respect to the prosecution of our motion for
contempt, your Honor.May we know from the record if the Register of Deeds is properly notified for
todayshearing.
COURT:WillyoucallontheRegisterofDeeds.
INTERPRETER:Atty.DiosdadoConcepcion,Heishere,yourHonor.
ATTY.BUGARING:Weareready,yourHonor.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

1/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

COURT:ThereisamotionforcontemptinconnectionwiththeorderofthisCourtwhichdirectedyouroffice
toregisterlispendensofthecomplaintinconnectionwiththiscaseofRoyalBecthelBuilder,Inc.versus
spousesLuisAlvaranandBeatrizAlvaran,etal.
ATTY. CONCEPCION: Your Honor, I just received this morning at ten o clock [in the morning] the
subpoena.
ATTY.BUGARING:MayweputitonrecordthatasearlyasNovember6,1996,theOfficeoftheRegister
of Deeds was furnished with a copy of our motion, your Honor please, and the record will bear it
out.Untilnowtheydidnotfileanyanswer,oppositionorpleadingswithrespecttothismotion.
ATTY.CONCEPCION: Well I was not informed because I am not the Register of Deeds. I am only the
Deputy Register of Deeds and I was not informed by the receiving clerk of our office regarding this
case.AsamatteroffactIwassurprisedwhenIreceivedthismorningthesubpoena,yourHonor.
ATTY.BUGARING:YourHonorplease,mayweputthatonrecordthatthemanifestationoftherespondent
thathewasnotinformed.
COURT:Thatisrecorded.ThisisaCourtofrecordandeverythingthatyousayhereisrecorded.
ATTY.BUGARING:YesyourHonorplease,weknowthatbutwewanttobespecificbecausewewillbe
[filing] a case against this receiving clerk who did not [inform] him your Honor please, with this
manifestationoftheDeputyoftheRegisterofDeedsthatisirregularityintheperformanceoftheofficial
dutyoftheclerknottoinformthepartiesconcerned.
COURT:Counsel,theCourtwouldliketofindoutwhothisfellowwhoistakingthevideorecordingatthis
proceedings.ThereisnopermissionfromthisCourtthatsuchproceedingsshouldbetaken.
ATTY.BUGARING:YourHonor,myAssistant.Ididnotadvisehimtotakeavideohejustaccompaniedme
thismorning.
COURT: Right, but the video recording is prepared process and you should secure the permission of this
Court.
ATTY.BUGARING:Actually,Ididnotinstructhimtotakesomevideotape.
COURT:Whywouldhebebringingcameraifyoudidnotgivehimthegosignalthatshotsshouldbedone.
ATTY.BUGARING:ThisCourtshouldnotpresumethat,yourHonorplease,wejustcamefromanoccasion
last night and I am not yet come home, your Honor please.I could prove your Honor please, that the
contentsofthattapeisothermattersyourHonorplease.Iwasjustsurprisedwhyhetookvideotapeyour
Honorplease,thatweasktheapologyofthisCourtifthatoffendthisCourtyourHonorplease.
COURT:It is not offending because this is a public proceedings but the necessary authority or permission
shouldbesecured.
ATTY.BUGARING:InfactIinstructedhimtogoout,yourHonor.
COURT:Afterthecourthavenoticedthatheistakingavideotape.
ATTY.BUGARING:Yes, your Honor, in fact that is not my personal problem your Honor please, that is
personaltothatguyyourHonorpleaseifthisrepresentationisbeing.
COURT:Thatisveryshallow,dontgivethatalibi.
ATTY.BUGARING:At any rate, your Honor please, we are going to mark our documentary evidence as
partofourmotionforcontempt,yourHonorplease.
COURT:WhathastheRegisterofDeedsgottosaywiththismatter?
ATTY.CONCEPCION:WellasIhavesaidbefore,Ihavenotreceivedanymotionregardingthiscontempt
youaretalking.Iamwillingnowtotestify.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

2/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor I am still of the prosecution stage, it is not yet the defense. This is a
criminalproceedings,contemptproceedingsisacriminal.
ATTY.CONCEPCION:YourHonorplease,mayIaskfortheassistancefromtheFiscal.
COURT:Ifthisisgoingtoproceed,weneedthepresenceofaFiscaloracounselfortheRegisterofDeeds.
ATTY.CONCEPCION:CanIappointanoutsidelawyernotaFiscalbutaprivatecounsel,yourHonor.
COURT:Thatisatyourpleasure.TheCourtwillconsiderthatyoushouldbeamplyrepresented.
ATTY.CONCEPCION:AsamatteroffactIhavealawyerhere,Atty.Barzagaifheiswilling
ATTY.BARZAGA[4]:Yes,yourHonor,Iwilljustreviewtherecords.
ATTY.BUGARING:AnywayyourHonorplease,IwillnotyetpresentmywitnessbutIwilljustmarkour
documentaryexhibitswhicharepartoftherecordofthecaseandthereafteryourHonorplease.
COURT:Youwaitforaminutecounselbecausethereisapreparationbeingdonebynewlyappointedcounsel
oftherespondent,Atty.Barzagaisconsideredastheprivatelyhiredcounseloftheregisterofdeedsand
the respondent of this contempt proceedings.How much time do you need to go over the record of this
casesothatwecancalltheothercaseinthemeanwhile.
ATTY.BARZAGA:Secondcall,yourHonor.

COURT:AreyoureadyAtty.Barzaga?
ATTY.BARZAGA:Yes,yourHonor.WellactuallyyourHonor,afterreviewingtherecordofthecaseyour
Honor,InoticedthatthemotionforcontemptofCourtwasfiledonNovember6,1966andinparagraph6
thereof, your Honor it is stated that, the record of the case shows up to the filing of this
motion,theRegisteraswellastheDeputyRegisterDiosdadoConcepcionoftheOfficeoftheRegisterof
DeedsoftheProvinceofCavite,didnotcomplywiththeCourtOrdersdatedFebruary27,1996,March
29, 1996, respectively. However, your Honor, Atty. Diosdado Concepcion has shown to me a letter
comingfromAtty.EfrenA.BugaringdatedSeptember18,1996addressedtotheRegisterregardingthis
noticeofLisPendenspertainingtoTCTNos.T519248,519249and519250andthisletterrequest,your
Honorfortheannotationofthelispendensclearlyshowsthatithasbeenalreadyenteredinthebookof
primaryentry.WewouldlikealsotoinvitetheattentionoftheHon.CourtthattheMotionforContempt
ofCourtwasfiledonNovember6,1996.Theletterfortheannotationofthelispendenswasmadebythe
counsel for the plaintiff only on September 18, 1996, your Honor. However, your Honor, as early as
August 16, 1996 an Order has already been issued by the Hon. Court reading as follows, Wherefore in
viewoftheabove,themotionofthedefendantisGRANTEDandtheRegisterofDeedsoftheProvince
ofCavite,isherebydirectedtoCANCELthenoticeoflispendensannotatedatthebackofCertificateof
TitleNos.519248,51949(sic)and51950(sic).
ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor please, may we proceed your Honor, will first mark our documentary
evidence.
COURT:Youwait until the Court allows you to do what you want to do, okay.The counsel has just made
manifestation, he has not prayed for anything.So let us wait untilhe is finished and then wait for the
directionofthisCourtwhattodotohaveanorderlyproceedingsinthiscase.
ATTY.BARZAGA:ConsideringyourHonor,thattheissuesappeartobealittlebitcomplicatedyourHonor,
considering that the order regarding the annotation of the lis pendens has already been revoked by the
Hon. Court your Honor, we just request that we be given a period of ten days from today your Honor,
withinwhichtosubmitourformalwrittenoppositionyourHonor.
COURT: Counsel, will you direct your attention to the manifestation filed earlier by Atty. Tutaan in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

3/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

connection with the refusal of the Register of Deeds to annotate the lis pendens because of certain
reasons. According to the manifestation of Atty. Tutaan and it is appearing in the earlier part of the
recordofthiscase,thereasonforthatisbecausetherewasapendingsubdivisionplan,itissostated.I
thinkitwasdatedMarch,1996.MayIhavetherecordplease.
ATTY.BARZAGA:Yes,yourHonor.
COURT:ThisCourtwouldliketobeenlightenedwithrespecttothatmatter.
ATTY. BARZAGA: Well, according to Atty. Diosdado Concepcion he could already explain this, your
Honor.
COURT: Have it properly addressed as part of the manifestation so that this court can be guided
accordingly. Because this Court believes that the root of the matter started from that. After the
submissionofthe.whatareyousupposetosubmit?
ATTY.BARZAGA:CommentyourHonor,onthemotiontociteAtty.DiosdadoConcepcionincontemptof
Court.
COURT:AfterthesubmissionoftheCommentandfurnishing a copy of the comment to the counsel for the
plaintiff,thisCourtisgoingtogivethecounselfortheplaintiffanequaltimewithinwhichtosubmithis
reply.
ATTY.BUGARING:YourHonorplease,itisthepositionofthisrepresentationyourHonorplease,thatwe
will be marking first our documentary evidence because this is set for hearing for today, your Honor
please.
COURT:Ifyouaregoingtomarkyourevidenceandtheydonothavetheircommentyetwhatarewegoingto
receiveasevidence.
ATTY.BUGARING:IfyourHonorplease
COURT: Will you listen to the Court and just do whatever you have to do after the submission of the
comment.
ATTY.BUGARING:Iamlistening,yourHonorplease,buttherecordwillshowthatthemotionforcontempt
wascopyfurnishedwiththeRegisterofDeedsandDiosdadoConcepcion.
COURT:Precisely,ifyouarelisteningthenyouwillgetwhattheCourtwouldwanttodo.Thisshouldbean
orderlyproceedingsandconsideringthatthisisaCourtofrecordthecommenthastobeinfirstthenin
yourreplyyoucansubmityourevidencetorebuttheargumentthatisgoingtobeputupbytherespondent
andsowewillbeabletohearthecasesmoothly.
ATTY.BUGARING:MypointhereyourHonorplease,isthattherespondenthadbeenlongtimefurnishedof
thiscontemptproceedings.Withacopyofthemotiontheyshouldhavefileditinduetimeinaccordance
withtherulesandbecauseitisscheduledfortrial,wearereadytomarkourevidenceandpresenttothis
Court,yourHonor.
COURT:(Bangingthegavel)Willyoulisten.
ATTY.BUGARING:Iamlistening,yourHonor.
COURT:AndthisCourtdeclaresthatyouareoutoforder.
ATTY.BUGARING:Well,ifthatisthecontentionoftheCourtyourHonorplease,weareallofficersofthe
Court,yourHonor,please,wehavealsoandweknowalsoourprocedure,yourHonor.
COURT:IfyouknowyourprocedurethenyoufollowtheprocedureoftheCourtfirstandthendowhatever
youwant.
ATTY.BUGARING:Yes,yourHonorplease,becausewecouldfeeltheantagonisticapproachoftheCourt
tothisrepresentationeversinceIappearedyourHonorpleaseandIputonrecordthatIwillbefilingan
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

4/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

inhibitiontothisHon.Court.
COURT:Dothatrightaway.(Bangingthegavel)
ATTY.BUGARING:Becausewecouldnotfindanysortofjusticeintown.
COURT:Dothatrightaway.
ATTY.BUGARING:Wearereadytopresentourwitnessandwearedeprivetopresentourwitness.
COURT:Youhavepresentedawitnessanditwasanadversewitnessthatwaspresented.
ATTY.BUGARING:Ididnot.
COURT:Withrespecttothis,theprocedureoftheCourtisfortherespondenttofilehiscomment.
ATTY.BUGARING:WellyourHonorplease,atthispointintimeIdontwanttocommentonanythingbutI
reservemyrighttoinhibitthisHonorableCourtbeforetryingthiscase.
COURT:Youcandowhateveryouwant.
ATTY.BUGARING:Yes,yourHonor,thatisourprerogativeyourHonor.
COURT:AsfarasthisCourtisconcerneditisgoingtofollowtherules.
ATTY.BUGARING:Yes,yourHonor,weknowalltherules.
COURT:Yes,youknowyourrulesthatswhyyouareputtingthecartaheadofthehorse.
ATTY. BUGARING: No your Honor, Ive been challenged by this Court that I know better than this
Court.Modestly(sic)asideyourHonorplease,Ivebeenwinninginmanycertioraricases,yourHonor.
COURT:Okay,okay,dothat,dothat.IamgoingtociteyouforcontemptofCourt.(Bangingthegavel)You
callthepoliceandIamgoingtosendthislawyerinjail.(TurningtotheSheriff)
ATTY.BUGARING:IamjustmanifestingandarguinginfavorofmyclientyourHonorplease.
COURT:YouhavebeengivenenoughtimeandyouhavebeenabusingthediscretionofthisCourt.
ATTY.BUGARING:IamverysorryyourHonor,ifthatistheappreciationoftheCourtbutthisisonewayI
amprotectingmyclient,yourHonor.
COURT:ThatisnotthewaytoprotectyourclientthatisanabuseofthediscretionofthisCourt.(Turningto
theSheriff)Willyouseetoitthatthisguyisputinjail.(pp.2942.Rollo)

Hence, in an Order dated December 5, 1996, Judge Espaol cited petitioner in direct contempt of
court,thus:
Duringthehearingofthiscase,plaintiffsandcounselwerepresenttogetherwithone(1)operatinga
videocamerawhowastakingpicturesoftheproceedingsofthecasewhilecounsel,Atty.RexieEfren
Bugaringwasmakingmanifestationtotheeffectthathewasreadytomarkhisdocumentaryevidence
pursuanttohisMotiontocite(incontemptofcourt)theDeputyRegisterofDeedsofCavite,Diosdado
Concepcion.
TheCourtcalledtheattentionofsaidcounselwhoexplainedthathedidnotcausetheappearanceofthe
cameramantotakepictures,however,headmittedthattheycamefromafunction,andthatwasthe
reasonwhythesaidcameramanwasintowwithhimandtheplaintiffs.Notwithstandingtheflimsy
explanationgiven,thecounselsentoutthecameramanaftertheCourttookexceptiontothefactthat
althoughtheproceedingsareopentothepublicandthatitbeingacourtofrecord,andsinceits
permissionwasnotsought,suchsituationwasanabuseofdiscretionoftheCourt.
Whentherespondent,DeputyRegisterofDeedsConcepcionmanifestedthatheneededtheservicesof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

5/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

counselandrightthenandthereappointedAtty.ElpidioBarzagatorepresenthim,thecasewasallowed
tobecalledagain.Onthesecondcall,Atty.Bugaringstartedtoinsistthathebeallowedtomarkand
presenthisdocumentaryevidenceinspiteofthefactthatAtty.Barzagawasstillmanifestingthathebe
allowedtosubmitawrittenpleadingforhisclient,consideringthattheMotionhassomanyramifications
andtheissuesarecomplicated.
Atthispoint,Atty.Bugaringwasinsistingthathebeallowedtomarkhisdocumentaryevidenceandwas
raringtoargueasinfacthewasalreadyperoratingdespitethefactthatAtty.Barzagahasnotyetfinished
withhismanifestation.AsAtty.Bugaringappearstodisregardorderlyprocedure,theCourtdirectedhim
tolistenandwaitfortherulingoftheCourtforanorderlyproceeding.
Whileclaimingthathewaslistening,hewouldspeakupanytimehefeltlikedoingso.Thus,theCourt
declaredhimoutoforder,atwhichpoint,Atty.BugaringflaredupandutteredwordsinsultingtheCourt
suchas:thatheknowsbetterthanthelatterashehaswonallhiscasesofcertiorariintheappellate
Courts,thatheknowsbettertheRulesofCourtthathewasgoingtomovefortheinhibitionofthe
PresidingJudgeforallegedlybeingantagonistictohisclient,andotherinvectiveswerehurledtothe
discreditoftheCourt.
Thus,inopencourt,Atty.BugaringwasdeclaredindirectcontemptandordertheCourtssherifftoarrest
andplacehimunderdetention.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingandthefactthatAtty.RexieEfrenBugaringcommittedanopen
defiance,evenchallengingtheCourtinadisrespectful,arrogant,andcontumaciousmanner,heis
declaredindirectcontemptofCourtandissentencedtothree(3)daysimprisonmentandpaymentofa
fineofP3,000.00.HisdetentionshallcommenceimmediatelyattheMunicipalJailofImus,Cavite.[5]
PursuanttosaidOrder,thepetitionerservedhisthree(3)daysentenceattheImusMunicipalJail,
andpaidthefineofP3,000.00.[6]
While serving the first day of his sentence on December 5, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order citing him in direct contempt of court. The next day, December 6, 1996,
petitionerfiledanothermotionprayingfortheresolutionofhismotionforreconsideration.Bothmotions
wereneverresolvedandpetitionerwasreleasedonDecember8,1996.[7]
To clear his name in the legal circle and the general public, petitioner filed a petition before the
CourtofAppealsprayingfortheannulmentoftheOrderdatedDecember5,1996citinghimindirect
contempt of court and the reimbursement of the fine of P3,000.00 on grounds that respondent Judge
DoloresS.Espaolhadnofactualandlegalbasisincitinghimindirectcontemptofcourt,andthatsaid
Order was null and void for being in violation of the Constitution and other pertinent laws and
jurisprudence.[8]
TheCourtofAppealsfoundthatfromathoroughreadingofthetranscriptofstenographicnotesof
thehearingheldonDecember5,1996,itwasobviousthatthepetitionerwasindeedarrogant,attimes
impertinent,tooargumentative,totheextentofbeingdisrespectful,annoyingandsarcastictowardsthe
court.[9]Itaffirmedtheorderoftherespondentjudge,butfoundthatthefineofP3,000.00exceededthe
limitofP2,000.00prescribedbytheRulesofCourt,[10]andorderedtheexcessofP1,000.00returnedto
petitioner.OnMarch6,1998,itrenderedjudgment,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmeritandtheassailedorderdated
December5,1996issuedbythetrialcourtisherebyAFFIRMEDwiththemodificationthattheexcess
fineofP1,000.00isORDEREDRETURNEDtothepetitioner.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

6/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

Beforeus,petitionerascribestotheCourtofAppealsthisloneerror:
THEAPPELLATECOURTCOMMITTEDAREVERSIBLEERRORINAFFIRMINGTHE
ASSAILEDORDEROFTHETRIALCOURTWHICHTOPETITIONERSSUBMISSIONSSMACKS
OFOPPRESSIONANDABUSEOFAUTHORITY,HENCEITCOMMITTEDAGRAVEERROROF
LAWINITSQUESTIONEDDECISION.[11]
Petitioner insists that a careful examination of the transcript of stenographic notes of the subject
proceedings would reveal that the contempt order issued by respondent judge had no factual and legal
basis.Itwouldalsoshowthathewaspoliteandrespectfultowardsthecourtashealwaysaddressedthe
courtwiththephraseyourhonorplease.
Wedisagree.
Section1,Rule71oftheRulesofCourtasamendedbyAdministrativeCircularNo.2295provides:
Directcontemptpunishedsummarily.Apersonguiltyofmisbehaviorinthepresenceoforsoneara
courtorjudgeastoobstructorinterrupttheproceedingsbeforethesame,includingdisrespecttowardthe
courtorjudge,offensivepersonalitiestowardothers,orrefusaltobeswornortoanswerasawitness,or
tosubscribeanaffidavitordepositionwhenlawfullyrequiredtodoso,maybesummarilyadjudgedin
contemptbysuchcourtorjudgeandpunishedbyafinenotexceedingtwothousandpesosor
imprisonmentnotexceedingten(10)days,orboth,ifitbeasuperiorcourt,orajudgethereof,orbya
finenotexceedingtwohundredpesosorimprisonmentnotexceedingone(1)day,orboth,ifitbean
inferiorcourt.
WeagreewiththestatementoftheCourtofAppealsthatpetitionersallegeddeferencetothetrial
courtinconsistentlyaddressingtherespondentjudgeasyourHonorpleasethroughouttheproceedingsis
beliedbyhisbehaviortherein:
1. the veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court (pp. 1415, tsn, December 5,
1996 pp. 4142, Rollo) is contrary to Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandates that a lawyer shall abstainfrom scandalous, offensive or menacing
languageorbehaviorbeforetheCourts.
2. the hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent judge was partial in favor of the other party
(pp.1314,tsn,December5,1996pp.4041,Rollo)isagainstRule11.04,Canon11oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilitywhichenjoinslawyersfromattributingtoajudgemotivesnotsupported
bytherecordorhavenomaterialitytothecase.
3.behavingwithoutdueregardtothetrialcourtsordertomaintainorderintheproceedings(pp.913,
tsn, December 5, 1996 pp. 3640, Rollo) is in utter disregard to Canon 1 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics which makes it a lawyers duty to maintain towards the courts (1) respectful
attitudeinordertomaintainitsimportanceintheadministrationofjustice,andCanon11oftheCode
of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to
theCourtsandtojudicialofficersandshouldinsistonsimilarconductbyothers.
4. behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time he was making
representations in behalf of the other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not
allowed to further put a word in edgewise (pp. 713, tsn, December 5, 1996 pp. 3439, Rollo) is
violative of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 22 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics which obliges a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
towardhisprofessionalcolleagues,and
5. the refusal of the petitioner to allow the Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, through
counsel,toexercisehisrighttobeheard(Ibid)isagainstSection1ofArticleIII,1997Constitution
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

7/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

ontherighttodueprocessoflaw,Canon18oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthicswhichmandatesa
lawyer to always treat an adverse witness with fairness and due consideration, and Canon 12 of
Code of Professional Responsibility which insists on a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it
hisdutytoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.

TheCourtcannotthereforehelpbutnoticethesarcasminthepetitionersuseofthephraseyourhonor
please.For,afterusingsaidphrasehemanifestedutterdisrespecttothecourtinhissubsequent
utterances.SurelythisbehaviorfromanofficeroftheCourtcannotandshouldnotbecountenanced,if
properdecorumistobeobservedandmaintainedduringcourtproceedings.[12]
Indeed,theconductofpetitionerinpersistingtohavehisdocumentaryevidencemarkedtotheextent
ofinterruptingtheopposingcounselandthecourtshoweddisrespecttosaidcounselandthecourt,was
defiantofthecourtssystemforanorderlyproceeding,andobstructedtheadministrationofjustice.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,tothedueadministrationofjustice.[13]Directcontemptiscommittedinthepresenceofor
sonearacourtorjudge,asinthecaseatbar,andcanbepunishedsummarilywithouthearing.[14]Hence,
petitioner cannot claim that there was irregularity in the actuation of respondent judge in issuing the
contempt order inside her chamber without giving the petitioner the opportunity to defend himself or
make an immediate reconsideration. The records show that petitioner was cited in contempt of court
duringthehearinginthesalaofrespondentjudge,andheevenfiledamotionforreconsiderationofthe
contemptorderonthesameday.[15]
Petitionerarguedthatwhileitmightappearthathewascarriedbyhisemotionsinespousingthecase
of his client by persisting to have his documentary evidence marked despite the respondent judges
contraryorderhedidsointhehonestbeliefthathewasboundtoprotecttheinterestofhisclienttothe
bestofhisabilityandwithutmostdiligence.
TheCourtofAppealsaptlystated:
Butalawyershouldnotbecarriedawayinespousinghisclientscause(Buenasedav.Flavier,226SCRA
645,656).Heshouldnotforgetthatheisanofficerofthecourt,boundtoexerteveryeffortandplaced
underduty,toassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationofjusticepursuanttoCanon12,Canonsof
ProfessionalResponsibility(Gomezv.PresidingJudge,RTC,Br.15,OzamisCity,249SCRA432,
439).Heshouldnot,therefore,misusetherulesofproceduretodefeattheendsofjusticeperRule
10.03.Canon10oftheCanonsofProfessionalResponsibility,orundulydelayacase,impedethe
executionofajudgmentormisusecourtprocesses,inaccordancewithRule12.04,Canon12ofthesame
Canons(Ibid).
Lawyersshouldberemindedthattheirprimarydutyistoassistthecourtsintheadministrationof
justice.Anyconductwhichtendstodelay,impedeorobstructtheadministrationofjusticecontravenes
suchlawyersduty.[16]
Althoughrespondentjudgewasjustifiedincitingpetitionerindirectcontemptofcourt,sheerredin
imposing a fine in the amount of P3,000.00 which exceeded the ceiling of P2,000.00 under Supreme
CourtAdministrativeCircularNo.2295whichtookeffectonNovember16,1995.Itwasnotestablished
that the fine was imposed in bad faith. The Court of Appeals thus properly ordered the return of the
excess of P1,000.00. Aside from the fine, the three days imprisonment meted out to petitioner was
justifiedandwithinthe10daylimitprescribedinSection1,Rule71oftheRulesofCourt,asamended.
Itisourviewandwehold,therefore,thattheCourtofAppealsdidnotcommitanyreversibleerror
initsassaileddecision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

8/9

1/23/2016

BugaringvsEspaol:133090:January19,2001:J.DeLeon,Jr:SecondDivision

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated March 6, 1998 of the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite is ordered to return to the
petitioner,RexieEfrenA.Bugaring,thesumofP1,000.00outoftheoriginalfineofP3,000.00.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),Mendoza,Quisumbing,andBuena,JJ.,concur.
[1]PennedbyAssociateJusticeRamonA.BarcelonaandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticeMinervaP.GonzagaReyesand
AssociateJusticeDemetrioG.Demetria,FourthDivision.
[2]SpelledasBecthelinCADecision.
[3]CADecision,pp.12,Rollo,pp.5152CommentofrespondentJudgeEspaol,Rollo,pp.8283.
[4]AlsospelledasBargazainthepetition.
[5]Rollo,pp.4950.
[6]CADecision,pp.1617,Rollo,pp.6667.
[7]Rollo,p.67.
[8]Rollo,p.67.
[9]Rollo,p.69.
[10] Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as amended by Administrative Circular No. 2295, which took effect on
November16,1995.
[11]Petition,p.22,Rollo,p.33.
[12]CADecision,pp.2223,Rollo,pp.7173.
[13]Cabilanvs.Ramolete,192SCRA674,678[1990].
[14]Id.,p.679.
[15]Rollo,pp.14,17.
[16]CADecision,p.23,Rollo,p.73.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/133090.htm

9/9