JUDGE RENE B. BACULI v  ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNGA

 A lawyer who insulted a judge inside a courtroom completely disregardsthe latter’s role, stature and

position in our justice system.

FACTS:

On July 24, 2008, during a hearing on the motion for reconsideration of

acase, respondent Atty. Mechor A. Battung acted disrespectfully by shouting while arguing his motion.
Petitioner, Judge Rene Baculi, had advised respondent  tone down his voice but the
respondent consistently
kept shouting, evenwhen he was warned that he would be cited for direct contempt. After eventually
being cited for direct contempt and was imposed a fine of P100.00, the respondent left. However, while
other cases were being heard, respondent re-entered the court and shouted “Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” He was escorted out of the courtroom and was again
cited for direct contempt for the second time. Respondent also uttered the same lines when he saw
petitioner at the hall of the courthouse afterwards and even challenged the latter to a fight. He was then
escorted out of the building. Based on the tape of the incident and the transcript of stenographic notes,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose dela Rama, Jr. found that the
respondent was the one who shouted first at the complainant, despite the latter’s claim that he was
provoked by the
petitioner. The Commissioner further stated that the respondent failed to observe Rule11.03, Canon 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that alawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language orbehaviour before the
courts. The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for insulting a judge in his courtroom?

RULING:

The respondent was guilty of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP Commissioner
found that the respondent failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that
requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers. The respondent
also violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 that provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive
or menacing language or behavior before the courts. The respondent’s argument that Judge Baculi
provoked him to shout should not be given due consideration since the respondent should not have
shouted at the presiding judge; by doing so, he created the impression that disrespect of a judge could
be tolerated. De la Rama recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
six (6) months.
The Supreme Court held that litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and
avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and
the court that he represents.

A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and
position in our justice system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge
Baculi that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent
effectively acted in a manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi’s competence and
in his ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be handled with
sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot
act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute.

Atty. Battung was ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with a WARNING that a
repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Go Vs. Abrogar

FACTS:

Petitioner Go failed to pay his debt in the bank, prompting the bank to file a case against him. RTC
rendered decision in favor to the bank. Atty. Javier, withdrawn his services as counsel and was formally
released by the petitioner through the “Notice of Permission” only on Oct. 29, 1999. On November
5,1999, Petitioner, now presented by his new counsel Atty. Caneda Jr,. filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Oct. 7,1999 decision. When the RTC denied the motion, petitioner by his counsel
filed a Notice on Appeal. RTC denied the notice on appeal, on the ground that the reglementary period
had already expired. The decision became final and executory. RTC ordered the issuance of Writ of
Execution against petitioner. On March 6, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitoner argues that the parties had actually intended
their liabilities to be joint, that he has evidence to prove that his liability was less than what the RTC
declared him liable for. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit.

Moreover, before closing, the Court has a few observations regarding the conduct of petitioner and his
counsel in this case. The petitioner alleges that:

Now it can be told, that the fishy and suspicious actuations of Atty. Javier was done for the sole purpose
of making sure that Jimmy T. Go will lose his case. With due respect, to our mind it can even be said that
the respondent IBank and its counsel Atty. Benedicto Valerio, Alberto Looyuko, petitioner’s nemesis
against whom he initiated several cases, and Looyuko’s counsel Atty. Flaminiano, the Honorable
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. Zeuz Abrogar and Petitioner’s
negligent counsel Atty. Javier are in cahoots with one another in their common objective to pin down
Mr. Jimmy T. Go.

ISSUE:

WON counsel acted according to his sworn responsibility to the court

RULING:

Petitioner’s particular attack against an RTC Judge is a serious accusation that erodes trust and
confidence in our judicial system. This Court will not hesitate to sanction persons who recklessly and
nonchalantly impute ill motives that are nothing more than unfounded speculations.

The Court is dismayed that such baseless attacks were assisted by counsel, who is an officer of the Court.
Under Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. In particular, he shall not attribute to a judge
motives not supported by the records or by evidence. A lawyer should submit grievances against a Judge
to the proper authorities only. Atty. Caneda, Jr. should have known better than to permit the
irresponsible and unsupported claim against Judge Abrogar to be included in the pleadings. Allowing
such statements to be made is against a lawyer’s oath of office and goes against the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Petitioner Jimmy T. Go and Atty. Gregorio D. Caneda, Jr. are STRICTLY
WARNED not to make disrespectful statements against a Judge without basis in the records or the
evidence.