A.M. No. 7006
This administrative case stemmed from the events of the Criminal case proceeding originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser. Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. The counsel of the defense filed a Motion to fix the amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty Bagabuyo, then Senior state Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject of bail under the Rules of Court.
Judge Buser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the harsh insinuation of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo that he lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate, by allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused.
Respondent appealed to the CA. Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting to the accused in the issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambast Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out.
The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of the article to appear in court to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article which degrade the court and its presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.
Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to answer whether he made the statement in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss. For his refusal to answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: WON Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer?
Held: YES
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states 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.
In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.
As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Montecillo v. Gica held:
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment