Bugaring vs Espanol

Rexie Efren A. Bugaring – petitioner

Judge Dolores S. Español of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite,- respondent judge

During a hearing for the annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title in the case of Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc. v. Spouses
Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et. al., petitioner (here-in counsel for Alvarans), together with his assistant operating
a video camera and taking pictures of the proceedings, manifested that he was ready to mark his documentary evidence
pursuant to his Motion to cite in contempt of court the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion.
Despite the court asking petitioner to allow the defendant’s counsel to finish his manifestation and respect the court’s
decision to give defendant counsel time to write their comment, petitioner kept insisting that he be allowed to mark his
evidence and even accused the court of being antagonistic and biased and threatening to file an inhibition to the Hon.
Court.

Facts

 During the hearing of the case, plaintiffs and counsel were present together with one operating a video camera
who was taking photos of the proceedings of the case while counsel, Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring, was making
manifestation to the effect that he was ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite
(in contempt of court) the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite – Diosdado Concepcion
 The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he did not in fact instruct his assistant to
take photos and added that the reason they had with them a camera was because they had just come from a
function
 Counsel sent out his assistant after the Court took exception to the fact that although proceedings are open
to the public and it being a court of record, the situation at hand is an abuse of discretion of the court since
the court was not asked for permission to do so.
 When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion manifested that he needed the services of
counsel and right then and there appointed Atty. Barzaga to represent him, the case was allowed to be called
again
 On second call, Atty. Bugaring started to insist that he be allowed to mark and present his documentary
evidence in spite of the fact that Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written
pleading for his client.
 The court declared him out of order. Atty. Bugaring served 3 days and paid a fine of P3,000 as instructed by
the court.
 After serving his sentence and paying the fine, he filed for a declaration of said order to be null and void. He
argued that he was never in contempt of court given that 1) he always addressed it with respect by using the
phrase “your Honour please” and 2) he was merely carried away by his emotions in espousing the case of his
client.
 CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but ordered the excess P1,000 to be returned

Issue:

Whether or Not the RTC erred in citing petitioner in direct contempt of court

Ruling:

NO

a. 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, to
the due administration of 
justice. 

b. As regards court’s legal basis for citing contempt of court, and in light of Atty. Bugaring defense of being polite and
using the phrase “your Honour please” during the proceedings, the court ruled that his deference to the court
in consistently addressing respondent judge as “your Honour please” is denied by his behaviour therein:

i. Veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court (in violation of Rule 11.03, Canon
11)
ii. The hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent Judge was partial in favour of the other
party (in violation of Rule 11.04, Canon 11) 

iii. Behaving without due regard to the trial court’s order to maintain order in the proceedings (in
disregard of Canon 1) 

iv. Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time was making
representation in behalf of the other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not
allowed to further a word in edgewise (in violation of Canon 8 and Canon 22) 

v. Refusal of petitioner to allow the Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, through counsel, to
exercise his right to be heard (in violation of Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution and Canon 18,
and Canon 12) 

c. Petitioner argued that while it might appear that he was carried by his emotions in espousing the case of his
client—by persisting to have his documentary evidence marked despite the respondent judge’s contrary
order—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. The Court of Appeals aptly stated: But “a lawyer should not be carried away
in espousing his client’s cause” (Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 656). He should not forget that he is
an officer of the court, bound to exert every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice pursuant to Canon 12, Canons of Professional Responsibility (Gomez v. Presiding
Judge, RTC, Br. 15, Ozamis City, 249 SCRA 432, 439). He should not, therefore, 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 (Ibid.).
d. The CA however directed the RTC to return P1,000 to Atty. Bugaring as it exceeded the ceiling set by SC
Admin. Circ. No. 22-95 of P2,000.

RULING: The assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. The RTC is ordered to RETURN to petitioner, Rexie Efren
A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000 out of the original fine of P3,000.