Bugaring vs. Español

A lawyer's disruptive, disrespectful, and contumacious conduct during a hearing constitutes direct contempt of court punishable summarily under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95; however, the fine for direct contempt by a superior court cannot exceed P2,000.00.

Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc. was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1266-96, an action for annulment of sale and certificates of title, specific performance, and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, presided by respondent Judge Dolores S. Español. Petitioner Rexie Efren A. Bugaring was the newly appointed counsel for Royal Bechtel in that case. The underlying litigation involved a notice of lis pendens over certain certificates of title and a motion to cancel it, which generated the contempt motion at issue.

Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc. was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1266-96 against Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et al., an action for annulment of sale and certificates of title, specific performance, and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, presided by Judge Dolores S. Español. Petitioner Rexie Efren A. Bugaring was the newly appointed counsel for Royal Bechtel. Pursuant to a motion filed by Royal Bechtel's previous counsel, the trial court issued an order on February 27, 1996 directing the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite to annotate at the back of certain certificates of title a notice of lis pendens.

Before the Register of Deeds could comply with the order, the defendant Spouses Alvaran filed a motion to cancel the lis pendens on April 15, 1996. On July 19, 1996, Bugaring filed an opposition to the motion to cancel. On August 16, 1996, the trial court granted the motion to cancel the lis pendens. Bugaring filed a motion for reconsideration, which the defendants opposed. On November 5, 1996, he filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve, and on November 6, 1996, he filed a Rejoinder to Opposition and Motion for Contempt of Court. The hearing of the motion for contempt was held on December 5, 1996.

At that hearing, Bugaring appeared for the plaintiff and Atty. Cordero for the defendant. Deputy Register of Deeds Diosdado Concepcion was present and stated that he had received the subpoena that morning at ten o'clock. Bugaring put on record that the Office of the Register of Deeds had been furnished a copy of the motion as early as November 6, 1996, and had not filed any answer or opposition. Concepcion explained that he was not the Register of Deeds but only the Deputy, and had not been informed by the receiving clerk. Bugaring manifested that he would file a case against the receiving clerk for irregularity. The court then noticed a person taking a video recording of the proceedings without permission. Bugaring said the cameraman was his assistant, that he did not instruct him to take video, that they had come from an occasion, and apologized if the court was offended. The court replied that the proceedings were public but permission was necessary, and called Bugaring's explanation a shallow alibi. Bugaring thereafter stated that he would mark documentary evidence. Concepcion asked for the assistance of a Fiscal or a private counsel, and Atty. Barzaga appeared as his privately hired counsel. The court allowed time to review the records.

On the second call, Atty. Barzaga manifested that the motion for contempt was filed on November 6, 1996, but that a letter from Bugaring dated September 18, 1996 requested annotation of the lis pendens and that it had been entered in the book of primary entry; he also noted that the August 16, 1996 order had directed cancellation of the lis pendens. Bugaring requested ten days to submit a formal written opposition, but the court directed that the respondent's comment be submitted first. Bugaring insisted on marking and presenting his documentary evidence because the case was set for hearing and the respondent had long been furnished a copy of the motion. The court told him to wait for the comment and to follow orderly procedure. Bugaring continued to speak, and the court declared him out of order. Bugaring responded that he was listening, that they were all officers of the court and knew procedure. The court told him to follow the court's procedure. Bugaring then said he could feel the court's antagonistic approach and that he would file an inhibition. The court told him to do it right away. Bugaring said they could not find justice in town, that he was ready to present his witness but was deprived, and reserved his right to inhibit the court. The court said it would follow the rules. Bugaring said he knew the rules. The court said he was putting the cart ahead of the horse. Bugaring replied that he had been challenged by the court and that, modestly aside, he had been winning in many certiorari cases. The court then cited him for contempt, banged the gavel, and directed the sheriff to put him in jail. Bugaring said he was manifesting and arguing in favor of his client. The court stated that he had abused the court's discretion and again directed the sheriff to put him in jail.

In an Order dated December 5, 1996, Judge Español cited Bugaring in direct contempt of court. The order recited the cameraman incident, Bugaring's insistence on marking documentary evidence despite Atty. Barzaga's manifestation, his disregard of orderly procedure, and his insulting utterances—that he knew better than the court because he had won all his certiorari cases, that he knew the Rules of Court, that he would move for inhibition of the presiding judge for alleged antagonism, and other invectives. The court declared him in direct contempt and sentenced him to three days' imprisonment and a fine of P3,000.00, with detention to commence immediately at the Municipal Jail of Imus, Cavite. Bugaring served his three-day sentence and paid the fine. While serving the first day on December 5, 1996, he filed a motion for reconsideration; the next day, December 6, 1996, he filed another motion praying for resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Both motions were never resolved, and he was released on December 8, 1996. Bugaring then filed a petition before the Court of Appeals for annulment of the December 5, 1996 Order and reimbursement of the P3,000.00 fine, claiming the order had no factual and legal basis and was null and void for violating the Constitution and pertinent laws and jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals found from the transcript that Bugaring was arrogant, impertinent, argumentative, disrespectful, annoying, and sarcastic toward the court. It affirmed the trial court's order but found that the P3,000.00 fine exceeded the P2,000.00 limit prescribed by the Rules of Court and ordered the excess P1,000.00 returned to him.

• No Factual or Legal Basis: Petitioner argued that a careful examination of the transcript of stenographic notes would reveal that the contempt order issued by respondent judge had no factual and legal basis.
• Respectful Conduct: Petitioner insisted that he was polite and respectful toward the court, as he always addressed it with the phrase "your honor please."
• Honest Belief in Client's Interest: Petitioner argued that although it might appear that he was carried by his emotions in espousing his client's case 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.
• Nullity and Reimbursement: Petitioner sought annulment of the contempt order and reimbursement of the P3,000.00 fine, maintaining that the order was null and void for violating the Constitution and pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming an order that smacked of oppression and abuse of authority.

• Direct Contempt: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order holding petitioner Rexie Efren A. Bugaring in direct contempt of court for his conduct during the December 5, 1996 hearing.
• Summary Punishment: Whether direct contempt of court may be punished summarily without giving petitioner an opportunity to defend himself or to seek immediate reconsideration.
• Penalty: Whether the P3,000.00 fine imposed by the trial court exceeded the limit prescribed by Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95.
• Honest Belief in Client's Interest: Whether petitioner's persistence in marking documentary evidence, allegedly in the honest belief of protecting his client's interest, negated direct contempt.

• Direct Contempt: No. The Court of Appeals did not err; petitioner's disruptive, disrespectful, and contumacious conduct during the hearing constituted direct contempt under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95.
• Summary Punishment: Yes. Direct contempt committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge may be summarily adjudged and punished without hearing; the records show petitioner was cited during the hearing and filed a motion for reconsideration the same day.
• Penalty: The three-day imprisonment was valid, but the P3,000.00 fine exceeded the P2,000.00 ceiling for a superior court under Section 1, Rule 71, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95; the excess P1,000.00 was properly ordered returned.
• Honest Belief in Client's Interest: No. A lawyer's honest belief in protecting his client's interest does not excuse conduct that disrupts court proceedings and obstructs the administration of justice.

• Direct Contempt: Section 1, Rule 71, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95, defines direct contempt as misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings, including disrespect toward the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that petitioner's alleged deference was belied by his behavior: he made a veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court, contrary to Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; he accused the respondent judge of partiality, contrary to Rule 11.04, Canon 11; he behaved without due regard to the trial court's order to maintain order, contrary to Canon 1 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; he rudely interrupted fellow counsel, contrary to Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Ethics; and he refused to allow the Registrar of Deeds, through counsel, to exercise his right to be heard, contrary to due process, Canon 18 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court noted the sarcasm in petitioner's use of "your honor please" because he manifested utter disrespect in subsequent utterances. His conduct showed disrespect to counsel and the court, was defiant of the court's system for orderly proceeding, and obstructed the administration of justice.
• Summary Punishment: 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. Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge, as in this case, and can be punished summarily without hearing. Petitioner therefore could not claim irregularity in the respondent judge's act of issuing the contempt order without giving him an opportunity to defend himself or make an immediate reconsideration. The records show that petitioner was cited in contempt during the hearing in the sala of the respondent judge, and he even filed a motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on the same day.
• Penalty: Although the respondent judge was justified in citing petitioner in direct contempt, she erred in imposing a fine of P3,000.00, which exceeded the P2,000.00 ceiling under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 22-95, effective November 16, 1995. It was not established that the fine was imposed in bad faith. The Court of Appeals thus properly ordered the return of the excess P1,000.00. The three days' imprisonment meted out to petitioner was justified and within the 10-day limit prescribed in Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
• Honest Belief in Client's Interest: The Court of Appeals aptly stated that a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client's cause. A lawyer 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. He should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice, unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes. Lawyers' primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice, and any conduct that tends to delay, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes that duty. Petitioner's honest belief did not justify his conduct.

• Direct contempt of court — Under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95, direct contempt consists of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings, including disrespect toward the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness. It may be summarily adjudged and punished by a fine not exceeding P2,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if committed before a superior court. The Court applied this provision to petitioner's disruptive and disrespectful conduct during the December 5, 1996 hearing.
• Summary punishment for direct contempt — Direct contempt committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge may be punished summarily without hearing. The Court held that petitioner could not claim irregularity because he was cited during the hearing and filed a motion for reconsideration on the same day.
• Inherent power to punish contempt — 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. The Court relied on this power to uphold the contempt citation.
• Duties of lawyers toward courts and colleagues — Lawyers must abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the courts; must not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record; must maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts; must observe and maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers; must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues; must treat adverse witnesses with fairness and due consideration; and must assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The Court found petitioner violated these duties.
• Lawyer's duty not to be carried away in espousing client's cause — A lawyer's primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice, and any conduct that tends to delay, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes that duty. Petitioner's insistence on marking evidence and interrupting proceedings, even if motivated by honest belief in protecting his client, did not excuse his conduct.
• Penalty ceiling for direct contempt — For a superior court, the penalty for direct contempt is a fine not exceeding P2,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both. The Court held that the P3,000.00 fine exceeded the ceiling, while the three-day imprisonment was within the limit.

• "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." — This is the statutory definition of direct contempt and the penalty limits under Section 1, Rule 71, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95; it is the controlling provision applied to petitioner.
• "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 administrative of justice." — This passage states the Court's rationale for upholding the contempt power as inherent and necessary to the 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." — This passage establishes that summary punishment is permissible for direct contempt and disposes of petitioner's procedural objection.
• "Although respondent judge was justified in citing petitioner in direct contempt of court, she erred in imposing a fine in the amount of P3,000.00 which exceeded the ceiling of P2,000.00 under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 22-95 which took effect on November 16, 1995." — This passage addresses the penalty issue and explains why the excess P1,000.00 was ordered returned.

• Cabilan vs. Ramolete, 192 SCRA 674, 678, 679 [1990] — Cited for the rule that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and that direct contempt committed in the presence of or so near a court may be punished summarily without hearing.
• Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 656 — Quoted for the principle that a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client's cause.
• Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 15, Ozamis City, 249 SCRA 432, 439 — Cited for the lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and not to misuse the rules of procedure, unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes.

• Section 1, Rule 71, Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95 — Defines direct contempt and authorizes summary punishment; for a superior court, the penalty is a fine not exceeding P2,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both. Applied to uphold the contempt citation but reduce the fine.
• Rule 11.03, Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the courts. Applied to petitioner's veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court.
• Rule 11.04, Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Lawyers are enjoined from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case. Applied to petitioner's accusation that the respondent judge was partial.
• Canon 1, Canons of Professional Ethics — A lawyer's duty is to maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts. Applied to petitioner's behavior without due regard to the trial court's order to maintain order.
• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Lawyers must observe and maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Applied to petitioner's disrespectful conduct.
• Canon 8, Code of Professional Ethics — A lawyer must conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues. Applied to petitioner's rude interruption of opposing counsel.
• Section 1, Article III, 1997 Constitution — Guarantees the right to due process of law. Applied to petitioner's refusal to allow the Registrar of Deeds, through counsel, to exercise his right to be heard. (The text refers to the "1997 Constitution"; the provision is cited as it appears in the decision.)
• Canon 18, Canons of Professional Ethics — A lawyer must always treat an adverse witness with fairness and due consideration. Applied to petitioner's treatment of the Registrar of Deeds.
• Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer must exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Applied to petitioner's conduct.
• Rule 10.03, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice. Applied through the Court of Appeals' reasoning.
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes. Applied through the Court of Appeals' reasoning.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.