REXIE EFREN A.

BUGARING AND ROYAL BECHTEL BUILDERS,

INC., petitioners,
vs.
HON. DOLORES S. ESPAOL, in her capaci! a" Pre"i#in$ %&#$e '(
he Re$i'na) Tria) C'&r Branch *+, I,&", Ca-ie, respondent.
DE LEON, %R., J..
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated March
6, 1998 of the Court of Appeals
1
affirming the decision of the egional !rial
Court of Cavite, Branch 9", #mus, Cavite, declaring petitioner e$ie %fren
A. Bugaring guilt& in direct contempt of court.
!he incident su'(ect of the petition occurred during a hearing held on
Decem'er ), 1996 of Civil Case *+. 1,66-96 entitled .o&al
Becthel
,
Builders, #nc. vs. /pouses 0uis Alvaran and Beatri1 Alvaran, et
al.., for Annulment of /ale and Certificates of !itle, /pecific 2erformance
and Damages with 2ra&er for 2reliminar& #n(unction and3or !emporar&
estraining +rder in the sala of respondent (udge Dolores /. %spa4ol of
the egional !rial Court of Cavite, Branch 9", #mus, Cavite.
2ursuant to a motion filed '& the previous counsel of o&al Bechtel
Builders, #nc., the trial court issued an order on 5e'ruar& ,6, 1996 directing
the egister of Deeds of the 2rovince of Cavite to annotate at the 'ac7 of
certain certificates of title a notice of lis pendens. Before the egister of
Deeds of the 2rovince of Cavite could compl& with said order, the
defendant /pouses Alvaran on April 1), 1996, filed a motion to cancel lis
pendens. +n 8ul& 19, 1996, petitioner, the newl& appointed counsel of
o&al Bechtel Builders, #nc., filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis
pendens. +n August 16, 1996, the motion to cancel lis pendens was
granted '& the court. 2etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was opposed '& the defendants. +n *ovem'er ), 1996, petitioner filed an
9rgent Motion to esolve, and on *ovem'er 6, 1996, filed a e(oinder to
+pposition and Motion for Contempt of Court.
:
During the hearing of the motion for contempt of court held on Decem'er ),
1996, the following incident transpired;
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
5or the plaintiff, &our >onor, we are read&.
A!!<.
C+D%+;
/ame appearance for the defendant, &our >onor.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<our >onor please, we are read& with respect to the
prosecution of our motion for contempt, &our >onor. Ma& we
7now from the record if the egister of Deeds is properl&
notified for toda&?s hearing.
C+9!; @ill &ou call on the egister of Deeds.
#*!%2%!%; Att&. Diosdado Concepcion, >e is here, &our >onor.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
@e are read&, &our >onor.
C+9!; !here is a motion for contempt in connection with the order
of this Court which directed &our office to register lis pendens
of the complaint in connection with this case of o&al
Becthel Builder, #nc. versus spouses 0uis Alvaran and
Beatri1 Alvaran, et al.
A!!<.
C+*C%2C#+*;
<our >onor, # (ust received this morning at ten o?cloc7 Ain the
morningB the su'poena.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
Ma& we put in on record that as earl& as *ovem'er 6, 1996,
the +ffice of the egister of Deeds was furnished with a
cop& of our motion, &our >onor please, and the record will
'ear it out. 9ntil now the& did not file an& answer, opposition
or pleadings or pleadings with respect to this motion.
A!!<.
C+*C%2C#+*;
@ell # was not informed 'ecause # am not the egister of
Deeds. # am onl& the Deput& egister of Deeds and # was
not informed '& the receiving cler7 of our office regarding
this case. As a matter of fact # was surprised when # received
this morning the su'poena, &our >onor.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<our >onor please, ma& we put that on record that the
manifestation of the respondent that he was not informed.
C+9!; !hat is recorded. !his is a Court of record and ever&thing
that &ou sa& here is recorded.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<es &our >onor please, we 7now that 'ut we want to 'e
specific 'ecause we will 'e AfilingB a case against this
receiving cler7 who did not AinformB him &our >onor please,
with this manifestation of the Deput& of the egister of
Deeds that is irregularit& in the performance of the official
dut& of the cler7 not to inform the parties concerned.
C+9!; Counsel, the Court would li7e to find out who this fellow who
is ta7ing the video recording at this proceedings. !here is no
permission from this Court that such proceedings should 'e
ta7en.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<our >onor, m& Assistant. # did not advise him to ta7e a
video he (ust accompanied me this morning.
C+9!; ight, 'ut the video recording is prepared process and &ou
should secure the permission of this Court.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
Actuall&, # did not instruct him to ta7e some video tape.
C+9!; @h& would he 'e 'ringing camera if &ou did not give him the
go signal that shots should 'e done.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
!his Court should not presume that, &our >onor please, we
(ust came from an occasion last night and # am not &et come
home, &our >onor please. # could prove &our >onor please,
that the contents of that tape is other matters &our >onor
please. # was (ust surprised wh& he too7 video tape &our
>onor please, that we as7 the apolog& of this Court if that
offend this Court &our >onor please.
C+9!; #t is not offending 'ecause this is a pu'lic proceedings 'ut
the necessar& authorit& or permission should 'e secured.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
#n fact # instructed him to go out, &our >onor.
C+9!; After the court have noticed that he is ta7ing a video tape.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<es, &our >onor, in fact that is not m& personal pro'lem &our
>onor please, that is personal to that gu& &our >onor please
if this representation is 'eing C.
C+9!; !hat is ver& shallow, don?t give that ali'i.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
At an& rate, &our >onor please, we are going to mar7 our
documentar& evidence as part of our motion for contempt,
&our >onor please.
C+9!; @hat has the egister of Deeds got to sa& with this matterD
A!!<.
C+*C%2C#+*;
@ell as # have said 'efore, # have not received an& motion
regarding this contempt &ou are tal7ing. # am willing now to
testif&.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<our >onor # am still of the prosecution stage, it is not &et the
defense. !his is a criminal proceedings, contempt
proceedings is a criminal.
A!!<.
C+*C%2C#+*;
<our >onor please, ma& # as7 for the assistance from the
5iscal.
C+9!; #f this is going to proceed, we need the presence of a 5iscal
or a counsel for the egister of Deeds.
A!!<.
C+*C%2C#+*;
Can # appoint an outside law&er not a 5iscal 'ut a private
counsel, &our >onor.
C+9!; !hat is at &our pleasure. !he Court will consider that &ou
should 'e ampl& represented.
A!!<. As a matter of fact # have a law&er here, Att&. Bar1aga if he is
C+*C%2C#+*; willingC.
A!!<.
BAEA=A
F
;
<es, &our >onor, # will (ust review the records.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
An&wa& &our >onor please, # will not &et present m& witness
'ut # will (ust mar7 our documentar& e$hi'its which are part
of the record of the case and thereafter &our >onor pleaseC.
C+9!; <ou wait for a minute counsel 'ecause there is a preparation
'eing done '& newl& appointed counsel of the respondent,
Att&. Bar1aga is considered as the privatel& hired counsel of
the register of deeds and the respondent of this contempt
proceedings. >ow much time do &ou need to go over the
record of this case so that we can call the other case in the
meanwhile.
A!!<.
BAEA=A;
/econd call, &our >onor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C+9!; Are &ou read& Att&. Bar1agaD
A!!<.
BAEA=A;
<es, &our >onor. @ell actuall& &our >onor, after reviewing
the record of the case &our >onor, # noticed that the motion
for contempt of Court was filed on *ovem'er 6, 1966 and in
paragraph 6 thereof, &our >onor it is stated that, ?the record
of the case shows up to the filing of this motion, the egister
as well as the Deput& egister Diosdado Concepcion of the
+ffice of the egister of Deeds of the 2rovince of Cavite, did
not compl& with the Court +rders dated 5e'ruar& ,6, 1996,
March ,9, 1996, respectivel&.? >owever, &our >onor, Att&.
Diosdado Concepcion has shown to me a letter coming from
Att&. %fren A. Bugaring dated /eptem'er 18, 1996
addressed to the egister regarding this notice of 0is
2endens pertaining to !C! *os. !-)19,F8, )19,F9 and
)19,)" and this letter reGuest, &our >onor for the annotation
of the lis pendens clearl& shows that it has 'een alread&
entered in the 'oo7 of primar& entr&. @e would li7e also to
invite the attention of the >on. Court that the Motion for
Contempt of Court was filed on *ovem'er 6, 1996. !he letter
for the annotation of the lis pendens was made '& the
counsel for the plaintiff onl& on /eptem'er 18, 1996, &our
>onor. >owever, &our >onor, as earl& as August 16, 1996 an
+rder has alread& 'een issued '& the >on. Court reading as
follows, ?@herefore in view of the a'ove, the motion of the
defendant is =A*!%D and the egister of Deeds of the
2rovince of Cavite, is here'& directed to CA*C%0 the notice
of lis pendens annotated at the 'ac7 of Certificate of !itle
*os. )19,F8, )19F9 HsicI and )19)" HsicI.?
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<our >onor please, ma& we proceed &our >onor, will first
mar7 our documentar& evidence.
C+9!; <ou wait until the Court allows &ou to do what &ou want to
do, o7a&. !he counsel has (ust made manifestation, he has
not pra&ed for an&thing. /o let us wait until he is finished and
then wait for the direction of this Court what to do to have an
orderl& proceedings in this case.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
Considering &our >onor, that the issues appear to 'e a little
'it complicated &our >onor, considering that the order
regarding the annotation of the lis pendens has alread& 'een
revo7ed '& the >on. Court &our >onor, we (ust reGuest that
we 'e given a period of ten da&s from toda& &our >onor,
within which to su'mit our formal written opposition &our
>onor.
C+9!; Counsel, will &ou direct &our attention to the manifestation
filed earlier '& Att&. !utaan in connection with the refusal of
the egister of Deeds to annotate the lis pendens 'ecause
of certain reasons. According to the manifestation of Att&.
!utaan and it is appearing in the earlier part of the record of
this case, the reason for that is 'ecause there was a pending
su'division plan, it is so stated. # thin7 it was dated March,
1996. Ma& 1 have the record please.
A!!<.
BAEA=A;
<es, &our >onor.
C+9!; !his Court would li7e to 'e enlightened with respect to that
matter.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
@ell, according to Att&. Diosdado Concepcion he could
alread& e$plain this, &our >onor.
C+9!; >ave it properl& addressed as part of the manifestation so
that this court can 'e guided accordingl&. Because this Court
'elieves that the root of the matter started from that. After the
su'mission of the C. @hat are &ou suppose to su'mitD
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
Comment &our >onor, on the motion to cite Att&. Diosdado
Concepcion in contempt of Court.
C+9!; After the su'mission of the Comment and furnishing a cop&
of the comment to the counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is
going to give the counsel for the plaintiff an eGual time within
which to su'mit his repl&.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<our >onor please, it is the position of this representation
&our >onor please, that we will 'e mar7ing first our
documentar& evidence 'ecause this is set for hearing for
toda&, &our >onor please.
C+9!; #f &ou are going to mar7 &our evidence and the& do not have
their comment &et what are we going to receive as evidence.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
#f &our >onor please C
C+9!; @ill &ou listen to the Court and (ust do whatever &ou have to
do after the su'mission of the comment.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
# am listening, &our >onor please, 'ut the record will show
that the motion for contempt was cop& furnished with the
egister of Deeds and Diosdado Concepcion.
C+9!; 2recisel&, if &ou are listening then &ou will get what the Court
would want to do. !his should 'e an orderl& proceedings and
considering that this is a Court of record the comment has to
'e in first then in &our repl& &ou can su'mit &our evidence to
re'ut the argument that is going to 'e put up '& the
respondent and so we will 'e a'le to hear the case smoothl&.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
M& point here &our >onor please, is that the respondent had
'een long time furnished of this contempt proceedings. @ith
a cop& of the motion the& should have filed it in due time in
accordance with the rules and 'ecause it is scheduled for
trial, we are read& to mar7 our evidence and present to this
Court, &our >onor
C+9!; HBanging the gavelI @ill &ou listen.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
# am listening, &our >onor.
C+9!; And this Court declares that &ou are out of order.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
@ell, if that is the contention of the Court &our >onor please,
we are all officers of the Court, &our >onor, please, we have
also ---- and we 7now also our procedure, &our >onor.
C+9!; #f &ou 7now &our procedure then &ou follow the procedure of
the Court first and then do whatever &ou want.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<es, &our >onor please, 'ecause we could feel the
antagonistic approach of the Court of this representation
ever since # appeared &our >onor please and # put on record
that # will 'e filing an inhi'ition to this >on. Court.
C+9!; Do that right awa&. HBanging the gavelI
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
Because we could not find an& sort of (ustice in town.
C+9!; Do that right awa&.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
@e are read& to present our witness and we are deprive to
present our witness.
C+9!; <ou have presented a witness and it was an adverse witness
that was presented.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
# did notC.
C+9!; @ith respect to this, the procedure of the Court is for the
respondent to file his comment.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
@ell &our >onor please, at this point in time # don?t want to
comment on an&thing 'ut # reserve m& right to inhi'it this
>onora'le Court 'efore tr&ing this case.
C+9!; <ou can do whatever &ou want.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<es, &our >onor, that is our prerogative &our >onor.
C+9!; As far as this Court is concerned it is going to follow the
rules.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
<es, &our >onor, we 7now all the rules.
C+9!; <es, &ou 7now &our rules that?s wh& &ou are putting the cart
ahead of the horse.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
*o &our >onor, #?ve 'een challenged '& this Court that #
7now 'etter than this Court. Modestl& HsicI aside &our >onor
please, #?ve 'een winning in man& certiorari cases, &our
>onor.
C+9!; +7a&, o7a&, do that, do that. # am going to cite &ou for
contempt of Court. HBanging the gavelI <ou call the police
and # am going to send this law&er in (ail. H!urning to the
/heriffI
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
# am (ust manifesting and arguing in favor of m& client &our
>onor please.
C+9!; <ou have 'een given enough time and &ou have 'een
a'using the discretion of this Court.
A!!<.
B9=A#*=;
# am ver& sorr& &our >onor, if that is the appreciation of the
Court 'ut this is one wa& # am protecting m& client, &our
>onor.
C+9!; !hat is not the wa& to protect &our client that is an a'use of
the discretion of this Court. H!urning to the /heriffI .@ill &ou
see to it that this gu& is put in (ail.. Hpp. ,9-F,. olloI
>ence, in an +rder dated Decem'er ), 1996, 8udge %spa4ol cited
petitioner in direct contempt of court, thus;
During the hearing of this case, plaintiffs and counsel were present
together with one H1I operating a video camera who was ta7ing
pictures of the proceedings of the case while counsel, Att&. e$ie
%fren Bugaring was ma7ing manifestation to the effect that he was
read& to mar7 his documentar& evidence pursuant to his Motion to
cite Hin contempt of courtI the Deput& egister of Deeds of Cavite,
Diosdado Concepcion.
!he Court called the attention of said counsel who e$plained that he
did not cause the appearance of the cameraman to ta7e pictures,
however, he admitted that the& came from a function, and that was
the reason wh& the said cameraman was in tow with him and the
plaintiffs. *otwithstanding the flims& e$planation given, the counsel
sent out the cameraman after the Court too7 e$ception to the fact that
although the proceedings are open to the pu'lic and that it 'eing a
court of record, and since its permission was not sought, such
situation was an a'use of discretion of the Court.
@hen the respondent, Deput& egister of Deeds Concepcion
manifested that he needed the services of counsel and right then and
there appointed Att&. %lpidio Bar1aga to present him, the case was
allowed to 'e called again. +n the second call, Att&. Burgaring started
to insist that he 'e allowed to mar7 and present his documentar&
evidence in spite of the fact that Att&. Bar1aga was still manifesting
that he 'e allowed to su'mit a written pleading for his client,
considering that the Motion has so man& ramifications and the issues
are complicated.
At this point, Att&. Bugaring was insisting that he 'e allowed to mar7
his documentar& evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was
alread& perorating despite the fact that Att&. Bar1aga has not &et
finished with his manifestation. As Att&. Bugaring appears to disregard
orderl& procedure, the Court directed him to listen and wait for the
ruling of the Court for an orderl& proceeding.
@hile claiming that he was listening, he would spea7 up an&time he
felt li7e doing so. !hus, the Court declared him out of order, at which
point, Att&. Bugaring flared up the uttered words insulting the CourtJ
such as; ?that he 7nows 'etter than the latter as he has won all his
cases of certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he 7nows 'etter the
ules of CourtJ that he was going to move for the inhi'ition of the
2residing 8udge for allegedl& 'eing antagonistic to his client,? and
other invectives were hurled to the discredit of the Court.
!hus, in open court, Att&. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt
and order the Court?s sheriff to arrest and place him under detention.
@>%%5+%, in view of the foregoing and the fact that Att&. e$ie
%fren Bugaring committed an open defiance, even challenging the
Court in a disrespectful, arrogant, and contumacious manner, he is
declared in direct contempt of Court and is sentenced to three H:I
da&s imprisonment and pa&ment of a fine of 2:,"""."". >is detention
shall commence immediatel& at the Municipal 8ail of #mus, Cavite.
)
2ursuant to said +rder, the petitioner served his three H:I da& sentence at
the #mus Municipal 8ail, and paid the fine of 2:,"""."".
6
@hile serving the first da& of his sentence on Decem'er ), 1996, petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration of the +rder citing him in direct contempt
of court. !he ne$t da&, Decem'er 6, 1996, petitioner filed another motion
pra&ing for the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Both motions
were never resolved and petitioner was released on Decem'er 8, 1996.
6
!o clear his name in the legal circle and the general pu'lic, petitioner filed a
petition 'efore the Court of Appeals pra&ing for the annulment of the +rder
dated Decem'er ), 1996 citing him in direct contempt of court and the
reim'ursement of the fine of 2:,"""."" on grounds that respondent 8udge
Dolores /. %spa4ol had no factual and legal 'asis in citing him in direct
contempt of court, and that said +rder was null and void for 'eing in
violation of the Constitution and other pertinent laws and (urisprudence.
8
!he Court of Appeals found that from a thorough reading of the transcript of
stenographic notes of the hearing held on Decem'er ), 1996, it was
o'vious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant, at times impertinent, too
argumentative, to the e$tent of 'eing disrespectful, anno&ing and sarcastic
towards the court.
9
#t affirmed the order of the respondent (udge, 'ut found
that the fine of 2:,"""."" e$ceeded the limit of 2,,"""."" prescri'ed '& the
ules of Court,
1"
and ordered the e$cess of 21,"""."" returned to
petitioner. +n March 6, 1998, it rendered (udgment, the dispositive portion
of which reads;
@>%%5+%, the petition is here'& D#/M#//%D for lac7 of merit
and the assailed order dated Decem'er ), 1996 issued '& the trial
court is here'& A55#M%D with the modification that the e$cess fine
of 21,"""."" is +D%%D %!9*%D to the petitioner.
Before us, petitioner ascri'es to the Court of Appeals this lone error;
!>% A22%00A!% C+9! C+MM#!!%D A %K%/#B0% %+ #*
A55#M#*= !>% A//A#0%D +D% +5 !>% !#A0 C+9!
@>#C> !+ 2%!#!#+*%?/ /9BM#//#+*/ /MACL/ +5
+22%//#+* A*D AB9/% +5 A9!>+#!<, >%*C% #!
C+MM#!!%D A =AK% %+ +5 0A@ #* #!/ M9%/!#+*%D
D%C#/#+*.
11
2etitioner insists that a careful e$amination of the transcript of stenographic
notes of the su'(ect proceedings would reveal that the contempt order
issued '& respondent (udge had no factual and legal 'asis. #t would also
show that he was polite and respectful towards the court as he alwa&s
addressed the court with the phrase .&our honor please..
@e disagree.
/ection 1, ule 61 of the ules of Court as amended '& Administrative
Circular *o. ,,-9) provides;
Direct contempt punished summarily. N A person guilt& of mis'ehavior
in the presence of or so near a court or (udge as to o'struct or
interrupt the proceedings 'efore the same, including disrespect
toward the court or (udge, offensive personalities toward others, or
refusal to 'e sworn or to answer as a witness, or to su'scri'e an
affidavit or deposition when lawfull& reGuired to do so, ma& 'e
summaril& ad(udged in contempt '& such court or (udge and punished
'& a fine not e$ceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not
e$ceeding ten H1"I da&s, or 'oth, if it 'e a superior court, or a (udge
thereof, or '& a fine not e$ceeding two hundred pesos or
imprisonment not e$ceeding one H1I da&, or 'oth, if it 'e an inferior
court.
@e agree with the statement of the Court of Appeals that petitioner?s
alleged deference to the trial court in consistentl& addressing the
respondent (udge as .&our >onor please. throughout the proceedings is
'elied '& his 'ehavior therein;
1. the veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court
Hpp. 1F-1), tsn, Decem'er ), 1996J pp. F1-F,, olloI is contrar& to
ule 11.":, Canon 11 of the Code of 2rofessional esponsi'ilit&
which mandates that .a law&er shall a'stain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or 'ehavior 'efore the Courts..
,. the hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent (udge was
partial in favor of the other part& Hpp. 1:-1F, tsn, Decem'er ), 1996J
pp. F"-F1, olloI is against ule 11."F, Canon 11 of the Code of
2rofessional esponsi'ilit& which en(oins law&ers from attri'uting to a
(udge .motives not supported '& the record or have no materialit& to
the case..
:. 'ehaving without due regard to the trial court?s order to maintain
order in the proceedings Hpp. 9-1:, tsn, Decem'er ), 1996J pp. :6-F",
olloI # in utter disregard to Canon 1 of the Canons of 2rofessional
%thics which ma7es it a law&er?s dut& to .maintain towards the courts
H1I respectful attitude. in order to maintain its importance in the
administration of (ustice, and Canon 11 of the Code of 2rofessional
esponsi'ilit& which mandates law&ers to .o'serve and maintain the
respect due to the Courts and to (udicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct '& others..
F. 'ehaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel
who at the time he was ma7ing representations in 'ehalf of the other
part&, was rudel& interrupted '& the petitioner and was not allowed to
further put a word in edgewise Hpp. 6-1:, tsn, Decem'er ), 1996J pp.
:F-:9, olloI is violative of Canon 8 of the Code of 2rofessional
%thics which o'liges a law&er to conduct himself with courtes&,
fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and
). !he refusal of the petitioner to allow the egistrar of Deeds of the
2rovince of Cavite, through counsel, to e$ercise his right to 'e heard
H#'idI is against /ection 1 of Article ###, 1996 Constitution on the right
to due process of law, Canon 18 of the Canons of 2rofessional %thics
which mandates a law&er to alwa&s treat an adverse witness .with
fairness and due consideration,. and Canon 1, of Code of
2rofessional esponsi'ilit& which insists on a law&er to .e$ert ever&
effort and consider it his dut& to assist in the speed& and efficient
administration of (ustice..
!he Court cannot therefore help 'ut notice the sarcasm in the petitioner?s
use of the phrase .&our honor please.. 5or, after using said phrase he
manifested utter disrespect to the court in his su'seGuent utterances.
/urel& this 'ehavior from an officer of the Court cannot and should not 'e
countenanced, if proper decorum is to 'e o'served and maintained during
court proceedings.
1,
#ndeed, the conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his documentar&
evidence mar7ed to the e$tent of interrupting the opposing counsel and the
court showed disrespect to said counsel and the court, was defiant of the
court?s s&stem for an orderl& proceeding, and o'structed the administration
of (ustice. !he power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is
essential to the preservation of order in (udicial proceedings and to the
enforcement of (udgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and
conseGuentl&, to the due administrative of (ustice.
1:
Direct contempt is
committed in the presence of or so near a court or (udge, as in the case at
'ar, and can 'e punished summaril& without hearing.
1F
>ence, petitioner
cannot claim that there was irregularit& in the actuation of respondent (udge
in issuing the contempt order inside her cham'er without giving the
petitioner the opportunit& to defend himself or ma7e an immediate
reconsideration. !he records show that petitioner was cited in contempt of
court during he hearing in the sala of respondent (udge, and he even filed a
motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on the same da&.
1)
2etitioner argued that while it might appear that he was carried '& his
emotions in espousing the case of his client N '& persisting to have his
documentar& evidence mar7ed despite the respondent (udge?s contrar&
order N he did so in the honest 'elief that he was 'ound to protect the
interest of his client to the 'est of his a'ilit& and with utmost diligence.
!he Court of Appeals aptl& stated;
But .a law&er should not 'e carried awa& in espousing his client?s
cause. HBuenaseda v. 5lavier, ,,6 /CA 6F), 6)6I. >e should not
forget that he is an officer of the court, 'ound to e$ert ever& effort and
placed under dut&, to assist in the speed& and efficient administration
of (ustice 2residing 8udge, !C, Br. 1), +1amis Cit&, ,F9 /CA F:,,
F:9I. >e should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to
defeat the ends of (ustice per ule 1".":. Canon 1" of the Canons of
2rofessional esponsi'ilit&, or undul& dela& a case, impede the
e$ecution of a (udgment or misuse court processes, in accordance
with ule 1,."F, Canon 1, of the same Canons H#'idI.
.0aw&ers should 'e reminded that their primar& dut& is to assist the
courts in the administration of (ustice. An& conduct which tends to
dela&, impede or o'struct the administration of (ustice contravenes
such law&er?s dut&..16
Although respondent (udge was (ustified in citing petitioner in direct
contempt of court, she erred in imposing a fine in the amount of 2:,""".""
which e$ceeded the ceiling of 2,,"""."" under /upreme Court
Administrative Circular *o. ,,-9) which too7 effect on *ovem'er 16, 199).
#t was not esta'lished that the fine was imposed in 'ad faith. !he Court of
Appeals thus properl& ordered the return of the e$cess of 21,"""."". Aside
from the fine, the three da&s imprisonment meted out to petitioner was
(ustified and within the 1"-da& limit prescri'ed in /ection 1, ule 61 of the
ules of Court, as amended.
#t is our view and we hold, therefore, that the Court of Appeals did not
commit an& reversi'le error in its assailed decision.
@>%%5+%, the assailed Decision dated March 6, 1998 of the Court of
Appeals is here'& AFFIR/ED. !he egional !rial Court of Cavite, Branch
9", #mus, Cavite is ordered to return to the petitioner, e$ie %fren A.
Bugaring, the sum of 21,"""."" out of the original fine of
2:,"""."".1wphi1.n