Case Brief: Duty to the

Legal Profession

Basic Judicial and Legal Ethics 1

Professor: Dr. Faye Albarico

REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING
vs.
DOLORES S. ESPAÑOL

GR No. 133090
January 19, 2001

Ponente: DE LEON, JR., J.

 FACTS:
 During the hearing of the case between Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc. and spouses Alvaran, plaintiffs and
counsel were present together with one (1) operating a video camera who was taking pictures of the
proceedings of the case while Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring (Atty. 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.
 When the respondent manifested the need for a counsel, they appointed Atty. Barzaga since he was
just appointed, the Court allowed them to have time to submit a formal written opposition. At this point,
Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his documentary evidence.
 As Atty. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly procedure, the Court directed him to listen and wait for
the ruling of the Court for an orderly proceeding. Thus, the court declared him out of order.
 Atty. Bugaring flared up and uttered words insulting the Court. He was then declared in direct contempt
and the Court's sheriff was ordered to arrest and place him under detention.
 The petitioner served his three (3) day sentence at the Imus Municipal Jail, and paid the fine of
P3,000.00.
 Upon his release, the petitioner then filed a petition before the Court of Appeals praying for the
annulment of the Order citing him in direct contempt of court and for the reimbursement of the fine
P3,000.00.
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit and found that the fine exceeded the limit
prescribed by the Rules of Court. Therefore, ordering the return of excess of P1,000 pesos to the
petitioner.
 ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioner’s conduct is violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
The Supreme Court agreed with the statement of the Court of Appeals that:
“4. behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time he was making
representations in behalf of the other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not
allowed to further put a word in edgewise...is violative of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility xxx.”
"Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of
justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice
contravenes such lawyer's duty.“
Indeed, the conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his documentary evidence marked to the
extent of interrupting the opposing counsel and the court showed disrespect to said counsel and the
court, was defiant of the court's system for an orderly proceeding, and obstructed the administration of
justice.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated March 6, 1998, of the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite is ordered to return to the
petitioner, Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000.00 out of the original fine of P3,000.00.
 ATTY. RAMON P. REYES
VS.
ATTY. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG JR.
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 5148, July 01, 2003 ]

Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
 FACTS:
 Atty. Ramon P. Reyes (Atty. Reyes) was handling a case for one Zonggi Xu (Xu), a Chinese-Taiwanese
businessman. His client filed a complaint for estafa against a certain Chia Hsien Pan (Pan) who was
represented by respondent, Atty. Victoriano Chiong (Atty. Chiong).
 The Complaint was assigned to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a
subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation. The latter neither appeared on the two
scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal
Complaint for estafa against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila who issued a warrant
of arrest.
 Atty. Chiong filed a Civil Complaint against complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga. Respondent
claimed he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for the
dismissal of the estafa case. Hence, this motion was filed.
 The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, the
Board of Governors of the IBP passed its June 29, 2002, Resolution.
 Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with damages had been filed purposely to
obtain leverage against the estafa case, in which respondent's client was the defendant. Improper and
highly questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor and complainant in the civil case instituted by
respondent on the alleged prodding of his client.
 ISSUES:
Whether or not the respondent violated his oath of office and the Code of Professsional
Responsibility?

HELD:
We agree with the IBP's recommendation.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership
in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession,
they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.“
We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper
remedies strengthen complainant's allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against the
estafa case.
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity, and civility. A
great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their
professional brethren.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from the
practice of law, effective immediately.
ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR.
VS.
ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR.
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010 ]

Ponente: ABAD, J
 FACTS:
 Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon (Atty. Barandon), Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment, suspension from the
practice of law, or imposition of... appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z.
Ferrer, Sr. (Atty. Ferrer).
 The following offenses were presented: falsification of document, threatening the complainant while
drunk, gross ignorance of the law, unethical act, and cited criminal cases the respondent is related.
Respondent submitted his defenses with motion to dismiss the accusations.
 Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case against him had already been dismissed. He
belittled the citations Atty. Ferrer allegedly received.
 The complaint was investigated by the IBP Investigating Commission and was referred to the IBP Board
of Governors.
 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to this Court a Report,
recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner found
enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer's violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 IBP Board of Governors on a resolution adopted and approved the recommendation but reduced the
penalty of suspension to only one year.
 Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Board denied it in its Resolution on the ground
that it had already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. However, the Court referred the case
back to the IBP for resolution of Atty. Ferrer's motion for reconsideration. IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that
denied Atty. Ferrer's motion for reconsideration.
 Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on Board of Governors' IBP Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008. The
Court resolved to treat Atty. Ferrer's comment as a petition for review under Rule 139 of the Revised
Rules of Court. Atty. Barandon filed his comment, reiterating his arguments before the IBP. Further, he
presented certified copies of orders issued by courts in Camarines Norte that warned Atty. Ferrer
against appearing in court drunk.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding
respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him and in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:
We have examined the records of this case and find no reason to disagree with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating Commissioner.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency
and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
 Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:
Rule 8.01. - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Ferrer's actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed
to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He
made this imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified
and that Atty. Barandon authored the same.
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite
the adversarial nature of our legal system.
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of
the Code provides:
Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
 Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and
unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.
Contrary to Atty. Ferrer's allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process.
The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit
any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. So long as the parties are given the
opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.
Here, the IBP Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the opportunities to file countless
pleadings and refute all the allegations of Atty. Barandon.
All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and
fairly.
Atty. Ferrer's display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the
performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the
court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
in CBD Case 01-809 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of
law for one year effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
THANK YOU!