You are on page 1of 2

BUGARING v.

ESPAOL

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 1,000 to be returned

ISSUE:

ISSUE/S & RATIO: 1. WON RTC erred in citing petitioner in direct contempt of court

HELD:

As regards courts 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 belied 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) 2

iii. Behaving without due regard to the trial courts 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 II 1987 Constitution
and Canon 18 and Canon12)

You might also like