CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY

WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating
familiarity with Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in the
normal course of judicial proceedings.
CANON 13
by Maxi Fernandez
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR
(ADM. CASE No. 7006, October 09, 2007)

FACTS:

The administrative case has its roots from the case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard before the sala of Judge
Jose Manuel Tan, Regional trial court of Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis Bucalon, was found to be guilty of homicide
and not murder with the evidence as basis. Counsel of the defense thereafter filed a motion to fix that amount of
bail bond, with which Senior state prosecutor and deputized prosecutor of the case Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo
contests stating that murder is non-bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which
was consequently denied. Hence, instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies, respondent caused the
publication of an article in the August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to
the media, after he was ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00 this time at Radio Station DXKS. He
attacked once again Judge Tan and his disposition on the proceedings of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the Code of professional conduct.


HELD:

Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the code of professional conduct Canon 13, Rule 13.02 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. That instead of resorting to the available judicial remedies before him, Atty.
Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity and authority of the court and the presiding judge, as well as promoted
distrust in the administration of justice when he resorted to media and declared his complaints there. Atty.
Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of Canon 11, when he disrespected the courts and the judicial officers and Rule
11.05 when he did not submit grievances against a judge to proper authorities only.

CANON 13
by Maxi Fernandez
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.
(A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009)

FACTS:

Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture of canned goods of
CDO filed an administrative complaint against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for violation of the code of
professional responsibility. The case at hand involved a certain Alberto Cordero who purportedly found a colony of
worms inside the can of liver spread by CDO and Foodsphere that he bought from the grocery. The Cordero family
sued the company for P150,000 for damages, but the companies did not agree to the demands. The Corderos
thereafter threatened to resort to the media, if their demands are not met. Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the
counsel of the Corderos, was involved in various media productions such as being a writer/columnist of tabloids
including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI
MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. Atty.
Mauricio, in many cases utilized these media outlets to place the said company in a bad light by declaring to the
masses the liver spread of worms; even after his receipt of the Order addressed to him to desist from further
publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case more specifically
the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its products. Even after the parties have performed an
agreement, signed by the Corderos and Atty.Mauricio himself resulting in the dismissal of the Cordero case,
Atty.Mauricio still inexplicably launched a media offensive to the companies.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of professional responsibility. His recourse to the Media, even after being
told to desist from such was a clear violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon 13, A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. His
action has put not only the company Foodsphere and CDO in a bad light, but has also degraded the dignity and
authority of the legal system. Besides the above, he has also violated Canon 1.01 by engaging in deceitful conduct
taking advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his own interests, and Canon 8, when he used abusive
and offensive language in his dealings.