G.R. No. ADM. CASE No. 7006; October 9, 2007
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR

FACTS

This administrative case originated from Criminal Case No. 5144 for Murder. The original judge denied the accused’s demurrer to evidence, finding the evidence sufficient only for Homicide, and later inhibited himself due to respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo’s insinuation of judicial bias. The case was re-raffled to Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan, who granted the accused’s application for bail. Respondent, a Senior State Prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration and later an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
While his appeal was pending, respondent caused the publication of a newspaper article entitled “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out.” The article contained false statements, including that the first judge described the evidence as “strong” for Murder and inhibited for an “unclear reason,” and it accused Judge Tan of “judicial arrogance.” The trial court initiated indirect contempt proceedings. During the hearing, the article’s writer identified respondent as his sole source. Respondent refused to answer whether he made the statements, leading the court to adjudge him in contempt, imposing a 30-day jail sentence and a fine.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Bagabuyo should be suspended from the practice of law for his conduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Bagabuyo from the practice of law for one year. The legal logic is grounded in the duty of lawyers to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and the courts. A lawyer’s right to criticize the judiciary is not absolute; it must be exercised responsibly, with restraint, and based on true facts. Respondent’s public statements in the media were not fair or temperate criticism but were false, malicious, and intended to discredit the judge and the court. By falsely claiming the first judge found the evidence “strong” for Murder and by stating the inhibition was for an “unclear reason” when the order explicitly cited his own harsh insinuation, respondent disseminated misinformation. This conduct violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to observe respect for the courts and to submit grievances only to proper authorities. It also breached Canon 13 and Rule 13.02, which prohibit public statements in media regarding a pending case that tend to arouse public opinion. His subsequent media interviews, attacking the judge’s integrity even after being cited for contempt, demonstrated a continuing pattern of disrespect. Such actions undermine public confidence in the judiciary and constitute gross misconduct warranting suspension.