CASE (Canon No, FACTS and ISSUES IBP-CBD IBP-BOG SC

parties)

Canon 11 Case: Disbarment, for violation of
Canons 11 and 12, CPR
JUDGE RENE B.
BACULI (MTCC 1. July 2008 hearing of a civil case,
Tuguegarao), vs. Judge claimed that Atty. Battung
ATTY. MELCHOR was shouting while arguing his
A. BATTUNG, motion. He warned Atty. B that he
respondent. would cite him for contempt. Atty.
Battung said, “Then cite me!”
(NOTE: civil case pertained to is an
ejectment case, decided by Judge
Baculi. Atty. B asserted that the
court had no jurisdiction to such a
case.)
2. Judge Baculi cited him for direct
contempt with a fine of 100. Atty. B
walked out of the court. While
hearing the next case, Atty. B re-
entered, shouted “I will file gross
ignorance of the law against you!”
Judge Baculi cited him again of
contempt and thrown him out of
the court.
3. That Atty. B waited for him
outside the courtroom, shouted “I
am not afraid of you!” to Judge, and
proceeded to punch a table.
4. Atty. B’s answer: that it was
Judge Baculi who disrespected
him; that Judge Baculi always
disrespects and embarrasses
IBP took IBP Board of Agreed with the findings that Atty. B
cognizance of the Governors passed a violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.03.
administrative case Resolution
and conducted its adopting and Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by
investigations. approving the shouting at him inside the courtroom
Report and during court proceedings in the presence of
1. The transcript of Recommendation litigants and their counsels, and court
stenographic notes of the Investigating personnel. The respondent even came back
manifest clearly Commissioner, with to harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in
that it was Atty. B the modification front of many witnesses, cannot be allowed
who shouted first at that the respondent --- even after the latter had cited him for
Judge Baculi. be reprimanded. contempt.
2. The record tapes REPRIMANDED These actions were not only against the
show that Atty. B person, the position and the stature of
was arguing his Judge Baculi, but against the court as well
motion in a high whose proceedings were openly and
pitch. Judge Baculi flagrantly disrupted, and brought to
reminded him not disrepute by the respondent.
to shout. That Atty.
B refused to follow Litigants and counsels, particularly the
the order and latter because of their position and
continued arguing avowed duty to the courts, cannot be
in such manner. allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and
disrespect a judge, and the court that he
3. That Atty. B was represents. The Code of Professional
in fact cited twice Responsibility provides:
for contempt
during that Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and
incident. maintain the respect due the courts and
to judicial officers and should insist on
RULING: similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from
Commissioner De la scandalous, offensive or menacing
Rama found that language or behavior before the Courts.
lawyers in that courtroom. That the respondent
Atty. B did not orally argued his MR failed to observe A lawyer who insults a judge inside a
on that day because he knows that Canon 11 of the courtroom completely disregards the
Judge would only scold him as a Code of latter’s role, stature and position in our
negligent lawyer. Professional justice system. When the respondent
Responsibility that publicly berated and brazenly threatened
requires a lawyer Judge Baculi that he would file a case for
to observe and gross ignorance of the law against the
maintain respect latter, the respondent effectively acted in a
due the courts and manner tending to erode the public
judicial officers. confidence in Judge Baculi’s competence
The respondent and in his ability to decide cases.
also violated Rule
11.03 of Canon 11 Atty. Battung’s violations are no less
that provides that serious as they were committed in the
a lawyer shall courtroom in the course of judicial
abstain from proceedings where the respondent was
scandalous, acting as an officer of the court, and before
offensive or the litigating public --- to the point of
menacing being scandalous and offensive to the
language or integrity of the judicial system itself.
behavior before
the courts. SUSPENDED: 1 year

The respondent’s
argument that
Judge Baculi
provoked him to
shout should not be
given due
consideration since
the respondent
should not have
shouted at the
presiding judge; by
doing so, he created
the impression that
disrespect of a
judge could be
 tolerated. What the
respondent should
have done was to
file an action before
the Office of the
Court
Administrator if he
believed that Judge
Baculi did not act
according to the
norms of judicial
conduct.

Canon 12 charge:
insufficient proof.

SUSPENSION:
Practice of law, 6
mos.

Canon 12 1. Atty. Ediza was previously found Xxx xxx The intentional delay and utter refusal
administratively liable by the SC on to abide with the Court’s orders is a
NEMESIO 2011, suspending him for 6 great disrespect to the Court which
FLORAN and months for violating Rule 1.01, cannot be tolerated. Atty. Ediza willfully
CARIDAD Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of CPR. left unheeded all the warnings imposed
FLORAN, upon him, despite the earlier six-month
complainants, 2. The root of said suspension was suspension that was meted out to him for
vs. ATTY. ROY the September 2000 complaint by his administrative liability. In Tugot v.
PRULE EDIZA, Spouses Floran, wherein the Court Judge Coliflores, the Court held that its
respondent found that Atty. Ediza deceived resolutions should not be construed as
complainants when he asked them mere requests from the Court. They
to unknowingly sign a deed of sale should be complied with promptly and
transferring a portion of their land completely. The failure of Atty. Ediza to
(3.5 hectare unregistered land at comply betrays not only a recalcitrant
Misamis Oriental) to him. streak in his character, but also
disrespect for the Court’s lawful orders
3. The Court, in that case (decided and directives.
2011), sanctioned Atty. Ediza with
the following penalties: As a member of the legal profession, Atty.
(1) suspended Atty. Ediza from the
practice of law for six months; (2)
directed him to return to
complainants the two sets of
documents that he mislead them to
sign; (3) ordered Atty. Ediza to pay
complainants the amount of
P125,463.38, representing the
amount he deceived them into
paying him, with legal interest
from 8 September 2000 until fully
paid.
4. Atty. Ediza then filed a
Manifestation of Compliance dated
May 2012, attesting that he
desisted from practice of law from
six months, as required.
However, the Court, on September
2012, instead, adopted the
recommendations of the Office of
the Bar Confidant that Atty. Ediza
be required to (1) submit
certifications from the IBP Local
Chapter where he is a member and
the Office of the Executive Judge
where he practices his profession,
both stating that he had desisted
from the practice of law from 18
November 2011 to 29 May 2012;
and (2) show proof of payment to
complainants of P125,463.38 plus
legal interest, and the return of the
two sets of documents that Atty.
Ediza misled complainants to sign.
5. The Court also required
complainants to manifest whether
Ediza has the duty to obey the orders and
processes of this Court without delay and
resistance. Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states:
A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT
AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST
IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. x x x x
Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes.
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution
recognizes the disciplinary authority of the
Court over members of the Bar. Reinforcing
the execution of this constitutional
authority is Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court which gives this Court the
power to remove or suspend a lawyer from
the practice of law:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of
attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor.—A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any xxx
or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, xxx”
Atty. Ediza’s stubborn attitude and
unwillingness to comply with the Court’s
directives, which we deem to be an
affront to the Court’s authority over
members of the Bar, warrant an utmost
disciplinary sanction from this Court.
DISBARRED.
Atty. Ediza had already paid the
said amount and returned the said
documents. In an undated letter
written in the vernacular,
complainants wrote the Court that
Atty. Ediza had yet to comply with
the Court’s Decision and asked the
Court’s assistance in implementing
the same.

6. In a Resolution dated 25
February 2013, the Court noted
Atty. Ediza on why he should not
be cited for contempt for not
following the Orders of the Court.

7. Atty. Ediza answered: he has no

intention to defy the Court orders.
Instead, he questioned that the
documents required by the Court,
alleging these to be “fictional.”
Moreover, he contended that he
already complied with the
suspension by submitting the
previous document.

8. More than four years since the

Court promulgated its Decision
dated 19 October 2011, Atty. Ediza
has yet to comply with the Court’s
directives. This is despite the
numerous resolutions issued by
the Court from 2012 until 2014.