Bugaring v Espanol | G.R. No. 133090 | January 19, 2001| J.

De Leon, JR

SUMMARY:

Petitioner ( counsel in a civil case) filed a Motion for Contempt of Court against Register of Deeds for a
non-annotation.

In the hearing for the motion he filed, he insisted on marking evidence, even though the Judge
reiterated that doing so now will be contrary to orderly proceedings. In his insistence, he was
disrespectful to the other counsel, and to the court. He even hinted on the partiality of the RTC, and
threatened with a filing of certiorari case against the RTC.

His acts constitute direct contempt of court, and are violative of several Canons including Canon 8.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision (March 6, 1998) of the Court of Appeals.
The CA decision affirmed a Cavite RTC decision that declared petitioner Rexie Efren A. Bugaring guilty in
direct contempt of court.

FACTS:
1. The events started from the civil case
a. entitled Royal Becthel Builders, Inc. vs. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et al.,
b. for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title, Specific Performance and Damages with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order
c. in the sala of respondent judge Dolores S. Espanol of Cavite RTC

2. Royal Bechtel had a different counsel before. This counsel filed a motion, and pursuant to this
motion, the RTC issued an order directing register of deeds to annotate a notice of lis pendens
at the back of certain certificates of title

3. However, before the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite could comply with said order,
the defendants the in civil case (Spouses Alvaran) filed a motion to cancel lis pendens.

4. At this point, plaintiff Royal Bechtel Builders already have a newly appointed counsel—
petitioner in this case.
a. Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis pendens.
 b. However, RTC ruled against petitioner. RTC granted the motion to cancel lis pendens.
c. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Urgent Motion to Resolve, Rejoinder to
Opposition (because the defendants have been opposing)
d. Petitioner also filed Motion for Contempt of Court, against the Register of Deeds

5. THE TRANSCRIPT:

During the hearing for the Motion for Contempt of Court, the following events transpired, as
recorded. This is where the petitioner committed acts which were found by the RTC (and the CA) to
have constituted contempt of court.
About the Deputy Register of Deeds non-awareness of the Case
(1) Petitioner wanted to know if Register of Deeds is notified for today’s hearing. According to
petitioner, he has already furnished them a copy of their motion, and yet there was never
any answer, pleading coming from them.
(2) So, respondent judge Espanol of RTC called up Register of deeds. But it was the Deputy
Register of Deeds who answered (Atty. Concepcion)
(3) Atty Concepcion claims he received the subpoena only at 10 am of that same day. Atty
Concepcion claims he was not informed by the receiving clerk about the pending case.
(4) Petitioner wanted to put that manifestation of Atty Concepcion on record, in order to file a
case against said clerk.
About petitioner’s companion who was video recording without permission
(1) Respondent judge suddenly called the attention of petitioner regarding the fellow who was
video recording. Although this is a public proceeding, there must still be a prior
permission.
(2) Petitioner claims that such person is his assistant.
a. That he did not instruct said person to take a video
b. That he was even surprised he was taking a video. The assistant had just
accompanied him at an event the night before.
c. That the assistant’s video recording is no longer petitioner’s problem because it is
not related to his representation.
(3) Judge Espanol called those as a ‘shallow alibi’

Petitioner opposes Atty Concepcion’s willingness to testify

(1) Petitioner already wanted to mark his documentary evidence
(2) Atty Concepcion said he is not notified of the case, and he is willing now to testify.
COURT: What has the Register of Deeds got to say with this matter?
(3) Petitioner opposes by saying that following criminal procedure, the present stage is only
prosecution, and not yet the defense
(4) Atty. Concepcion asked for assistance of fiscal. In the end, he appointed his private counsel,
Atty. Bargaza.
(5) Petitioner insists that he already wants to mark his evidence.
(6) But the respondent judge replies: “You wait for a minute counsel because there is a
preparation being done by newly appointed counsel of the respondent, Atty. Barzaga”

Petitioner cuts off Atty. Bargaza, and insists on marking the evidence
(1) Atty Bargaza explains the ff:
a. When the trial court initially granted the annotation, petitioner wrote a letter-request to
that effect. Accordingly, the annotation was already entered in the book of primary
entry.
b. Letter for annotation was made by counsel on Sept 18, 1996. BUT EVEN BEFORE THAT,
on Aug 16, 1996, RTC already directed to CANCEL the annotation. Therefore, when the
motion for contempt was filed, there was already an order for the cancellation of the
annotation.
(2) But petitioner cuts off again by saying: “Your Honor please, may we proceed your Honor, will
first mark our documentary evidence”
(3) To this, Respondent Judge replied: You wait 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 until he is finished and then wait for the direction of this Court what to do to have an
orderly proceedings in this case.

Petitioner’s Refusal to follow the orderly proceedings of the Court

(1) Respondent Judge ordered Atty Barzaga to make a manifestation wherein Atty Concepcion will
explain the reason for the non-annotation of the notice of lis pendens, and for Atty Barzaga to
file a comment on the motion.
(2) But petitioner insists: “Your Honor please, it is the position of this representation your Honor
please, that we will be marking first our documentary evidence because this is set for hearing
for today, your Honor please.”
(3) Judge refuses to allow petitioner. He explains that without a comment from Atty Barzaga,
nothing can be received as evidence, that the orderly proceeding should be comment from Atty
Barzaga  reply by petitioner  petitioner to submit evidence rebutting Atty Barzaga’s
argument
(4) Petitioner insists on his point that the Register of deeds was furnished a copy of contempt
proceedings a long time ago already.
(5) Respondent judge replies in the ff manner:
 a. “ Will you listen to the Court and just do whatever you have to do after the submission
of the comment.”
b. (Banging the gavel) Will you listen.

Petitioner hints on the Court being partial, and on a threat of filing a certiorari case against the RTC
(1) Petitioner says:
a. “we could feel the antagonistic approach of the Court to this representation ever since
I appeared your Honor please and I put on record that I will be filing an inhibition to
this Hon. Court.”
b. “Because we could not find any sort of justice in town.”
c. “Ive been challenged by this Court that I know better than this Court. Modestly (sic)
aside your Honor please, Ive been winning in many certiorari cases, your Honor.”
END OF TRANSCRIPT

6. So, Judge Espanol cited petitioner in direct contempt of court. He was sentenced to 3 days of
imprisonment, and to pay fine of 3k pesos.
7. Petitioner did serve his sentence. But to clear his name, he filed a petition to annul the order,
before the CA
a. no factual and legal basis
b. Order was null and void for being in violation of the Constitution and other pertinent
laws and jurisprudence.
8. CA ruled against petitioner, but found that the 3k fine is beyond the 2k limit in the Rules of
Court
a. In the transcript, “petitioner was indeed arrogant, at times impertinent, too
argumentative, to the extent of being disrespectful, annoying and sarcastic towards the
court”
b. 3k fine is beyond the 2k limit in ROC. 1k should be returned.
9. Hence, this petition before the SC.

WON Petitioner is guilty of direct contempt of Court

Yes.

Premise 1: Petitioner’s CLAIM

- The RTC order smacks of “oppression and abuse of authority”

 - In affirming the RTC order, CA committed grave error of law
- Contempt order is without factual and legal basis. In fact, petitioner has been polite and
respectful by addressing the Court “Your honor please”

Premise 2: The applicable rule in determining Contempt of Court is Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95.

It provides:

Direct contempt punished summarily. - A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so

near a court or judge as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same,
including disrespect toward the court or judge,
offensive personalities toward others,
or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness,
or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so,
may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court or judge and punished by a fine not
exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a
superior court, or a judge thereof, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be an inferior court.

Premise 2: The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts

- This is because it is essential
o to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings
o to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court,
o and consequently, to the due administration of justice.
- Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge, as in the case at
bar, and can be punished summarily without hearing

Premise 3: It will be seen that the following actions of the petitioner constitute a ground for
finding him in direct contempt of court.

Premise 4: Petitioner persisted to have his documentary evidence marked to the extent of
interrupting the opposing counsel and the court.
Such conduct already gives ground to cite him in contempt
- showed disrespect to said counsel and the court,
- was defiant of the courts system for an orderly proceeding,
- and obstructed the administration of justice.
Premise 5: He also violated various Canons.
(1) He gave a veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court
a. Contrary to Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
(2) He accused that the respondent judge was partial in favor of the other party
a. against Rule 11.04, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
enjoins lawyers from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
(3) He behaved without due regard to the trial courts order to maintain order in the
proceedings
a. utter disregard to Canon 1 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which makes it a
lawyers duty to maintain towards the courts (1) respectful attitude in order to
maintain its importance in the administration of justice
b. contrary to Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates
lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
(4) He behaved 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
a. 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 toward his professional colleagues, and
b. **THIS CASE IS ASSIGNED UNDER CANON 8.
(5) He refused to allow the Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, through counsel, to
exercise his right to be heard
a. against Section 1 of Article III, 1997 Constitution on the right to due process of law
b. against Canon 18 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which mandates a lawyer to
always treat an adverse witness with fairness and due consideration
c. against Canon 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility which insists on a lawyer
to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.

Premise 6: Having violated such Canons, it appears that whenever petitioner used the phrase ‘your
honor please,’ it was only with sarcasm.

- Because after using said phrase he manifested utter disrespect to the court in his subsequent
utterances.
 - Surely this behavior from an officer of the Court cannot and should not be countenanced, if
proper decorum is to be observed and maintained during court proceedings

Premise 7: petitioner cannot use the following defenses/ arguments

(1) Claim: There is an irregularity in issuing the contempt order inside judge’s chamber without
giving the petitioner the opportunity to defend himself or make an immediate reconsideration.
COURT: IT was during a hearing, and Petitioner was able to file a motion for reconsideration of
the contempt order on the same day.
(2) Clam: Petitioner was carried by his emotions in espousing the case of his client and he did so in
the honest belief that he was bound to protect the interest of his client to the best of his ability
and with utmost diligence.
COURT: A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his clients cause, as held in
Buenaseda v. Flavier).
He should not forget that he is an officer of the court who has a duty not only to client, but also
to the speedy and efficient administration of justice pursuant to Canon 12, Canons of
Professional Responsibility
He should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice per Rule
10.03. Canon 10 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede
the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes, in accordance with Rule 12.04, Canon
12 of the same Canons

WON Respondent judge imposed the proper amount of fine

No

Premise 1: The ceiling under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 22-95 which took effect on
November 16, 1995, is 2k pesos
Premise 2:
1. the imposed 3k is excessive
2. Note: It was not established that the fine was imposed in bad faith.
3. The Court of Appeals thus properly ordered the return of the excess of P1,000.00.
WON Respondent judge imposed the proper time of imprisonment
Yes

Premise 1: 10-day limit prescribed in Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Premise 2: the three days imprisonment meted out to petitioner was justified
DISPOSITION: 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, Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000.00 out of the original fine of P3,000.00.