A.C. No. 8920 - Baculi vs. Battung

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8920)

Procedural History

Judge Baculi filed a complaint with the IBP Commission on Discipline alleging violations of Canons 11 and 12 by Atty. Battung. The IBP investigated through Commissioner De la Rama who heard the parties, reviewed a tape and transcript of the July 24, 2008 courtroom incident, and prepared a report recommending suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but modified the recommended sanction to a reprimand. The matter was then reviewed by the Supreme Court, which rendered the final disposition.

Facts Relating to the Canon 11 Allegation

During the July 24, 2008 hearing on a motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent loudly argued and was cautioned by the presiding judge to “tone down” his voice. The respondent shouted back and, when warned he would be cited for direct contempt, exclaimed “Then cite me!” He was cited for contempt and fined P100, left the courtroom, then re-entered and shouted threats at the judge—stating he would file a charge of “gross ignorance” and that he was “not afraid” of the judge—prompting the sheriff to remove him and a second contempt citation. After leaving, he purportedly continued shouting in the courthouse hall and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court. Multiple witnesses and audio/transcript evidence were available.

Facts Relating to the Canon 12 Allegation

Separately, in Civil Case No. 2640 (an ejectment case), Judge Baculi rendered a decision on October 4, 2007 and modified it on December 14, 2007; a certificate of finality was issued. Post-finality, the respondent filed a motion to quash the writ of execution and invoked a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Baculi alleged these pleadings were dilatory and intended to delay the administration of justice; the IBP investigation found the evidence insufficient to sustain a Rule 12 (Canon 12) violation.

Respondent’s Defense and Pleadings

Atty. Battung denied culpability and asserted provocation by Judge Baculi, alleging the judge attempted to humiliate him and publicly portray him as negligent and incompetent. In his Answer he admitted he said he would file a charge of “gross ignorance” but characterized his reaction as provoked by the judge’s alleged humiliating conduct, and he requested dismissal of the disciplinary complaint.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

Commissioner De la Rama reviewed the tape and stenographic notes and concluded that the respondent was the first to shout at the presiding judge, notwithstanding instances where the judge’s voice was described as high-pitched. The commissioner considered the contemporaneous cautions recorded in the TSN, the joint-affidavit of courtroom witnesses corroborating that the respondent shouted, and the manner in which the incident disrupted proceedings. On the Canon 11 charge, the commissioner found a breach of Rule 11.03 (abstention from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts). On the Canon 12 claim, the commissioner found the evidence inadequate to prove misuse of judicial processes. The commissioner recommended a six-month suspension.

IBP Board Action

On October 9, 2010 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the investigating commissioner’s report but modified the recommended penalty, determining that a reprimand would be the appropriate disciplinary measure. The matter was then elevated for the Supreme Court’s final determination.

Supreme Court’s Legal Conclusion

The Supreme Court agreed that Atty. Battung violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by shouting at the presiding judge during formal court proceedings, returning to the courtroom to further harass and threaten the judge, disrupting ongoing proceedings, and behaving in a manner that undermined the dignity and authority of the court. The Court emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, must uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary; public insults and threats in the courtroom erode public confidence and cannot be condoned. The Court observed that even if provocation occurred, the proper remedy would have been administrative action via the Office of the Court Administrator, not public outbursts in open court.

Comparative Authority and Weight of Sanction

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8920)

Case Caption, Citation and Tribunal

Jurisprudence citation: 679 Phil. 1, Second Division, A.C. No. 8920, September 28, 2011.
Title as reflected in the source: "JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG, RESPONDENT."
Deciding Justice: BRION, J., writing for the Court.
Members noted as concurring: Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, and Sereno, JJ.
Administrative designations noted: BRION, J. designated Acting Chairperson in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order No. 1083 dated September 13, 2011; other Justices designated as Additional Members per Special Orders identified in the source.

Parties and Positions

Complainant: Judge Rene B. Baculi, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City.
Respondent: Atty. Melchor A. Battung, member of the Bar, postal address on Aguinaldo St., Tuguegarao City.
Nature of complaint: Complaint for disbarment filed with the Commission on Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging violations of Canons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Background and Procedural History

Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Battung alleging violations of Canons 11 and 12.
The IBP, through its Commission on Discipline, investigated the complaint and appointed Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. to conduct the investigation.
A mandatory conference was conducted on January 16, 2009; both parties reiterated allegations in their pleadings and agreed to submit the original July 24, 2008 tape of the courtroom incident for review.
Commissioner De la Rama prepared a Commissioner’s Report with findings and recommendations.
On October 9, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Commissioner’s Report with a modification recommending that the respondent be reprimanded.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, which issued the present decision on September 28, 2011.

Factual Narrative: July 24, 2008 Courtroom Incident

Incident occurred during hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, July 24, 2008.
Judge Baculi alleged that the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion; when advised to tone down his voice, the respondent shouted again and, when warned of citation for direct contempt, shouted "Then cite me!" and was cited for direct contempt and fined P100.00.
The respondent left the courtroom, later re-entered while other cases were being heard, and shouted in a threatening tone, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" leading to a second citation for direct contempt and escort by the sheriff.
After hearings, Judge Baculi saw respondent in the courthouse hall; respondent again shouted similar threats and challenged the judge to a fight; staff and lawyers escorted respondent out of the building.
Judge Baculi learned that after leaving the courtroom the first time, the respondent continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.
The respondent’s Answer to the complaint asserted he was provoked and framed portions of his response as an allegation that Judge Baculi had disrespected and humiliated him (quoting his Answer paragraphs 23, 24, 25, and 28 as submitted in the source).

Respondent’s Position and Pleadings

Atty. Battung’s Answer denied the allegations in substance and alleged provocation by Judge Baculi.
In his Answer the respondent stated, among other things:
- "I only told Judge Rene Baculi I will file Gross ignorance of the Law against him once inside the court room when he was lambasting me."
- "It was JUDGE BACULI WHO DISRESPECTED ME. He did not like that I just submit the Motion for Reconsideration without oral argument because he wanted to have an occasion to just HUMILIATE ME..."
- "These words of Judge Rene Baculi made me react."
- He claimed the judge forced him to argue after he manifested submission of the motion, which he alleged was an occasion for humiliation.

Evidence Submitted and Recorded Transcripts

The original tape of the July 24, 2008 courtroom incident and the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) were submitted for review.
Commissioner De la Rama reviewed the tape and the TSN and recounted passages showing exchanges between the parties, including:
- The court cautioning "Do not shout."
- Atty. Battung’s retort, "Because the court is shouting."
- The judge’s admonition regarding the respondent appearing before his court and a remark transcribed as the judge saying "we are very sorry if you do not want to appear before my court..." (the report notes the underlined phrase "we are very sorry" was actually uttered by Atty. Battung while the judge was speaking).
- The TSN indicates a point where the court asked, "Did you proceed under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure?" and the respondent answered in a manner that the Commissioner noted as the point where the respondent shouted at the presiding judge.
- The TSN records both parties shouting at each other after that point.
- The TSN captures the judge ordering a P100 fine, Atty. Battung saying "We will file the necessary action against this court for gross ignorance of the law," leaving the courtroom, re-entering, attempting to speak, and being ordered out by the court with the sheriff ins