Smile!

Life is too short to spend on worrying and frowning, so smile! if you have to cry or frown, then do so but after a few minutes, try to smile again. We have a lot to be thankful for which is enough reason for us to smile.

Monday, October 17, 2011


I am reposting an announcement from the Supreme Court website for this year's Bar Exams.

Side comment -- Bar Ops "Banned".    Such a stiff word.  Too bad, it has been a tradition for years to hold bar ops within the bar site.  To ban this would really forget about the past bar exams.



'Bar Ops' Within Vicinity of UST Banned

Posted: October 24, 2011; By Gleo Sp. Guerra

Bar operations, such as setting up of streamers, sendoffs, and cheering squads, are banned within the vicinity of the University of Santo Tomas, the venue of the 2011 Bar examinations during November 6, 13, 20, and 27.
This was announced by Supreme Court Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of Court Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa in a Bar briefing for superintendents and supervisors of the Bar examinations at the SC Old Session Hall this afternoon.
Atty. Layusa also revealed that 2011 Bar Chairperson Justice Roberto A. Abad has directed that the streets surrounding the UST campus (Dapitan St., P. Noval St., EspaƱa Boulevard, and Lacson Avenue) remain open to traffic for all four Sundays of the Bar examinations.
To maintain peace and order during the Bar examinations, she said that the Court will be assisted by uniformed police and plainclothes agents of the National Bureau of Investigation.
Six thousand two hundred (6,200) law graduates have been cleared by the Court to take this year’s Bar Examinations, which for the first time will be held in November as well as feature multiple-choice questions. The list of admitted Bar applicants can be viewed at sc.judiciary.gov.ph.




http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007152JG/ref=as_li_qf_br_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=httpjcajotebl-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0007152JG

Baculi vs. Battung



Judge Rene B. Baculi, Complainant, vs. Atty. Melchor A. Battung, Respondent

Supreme Court Second Division

A.C. No. 8920, September 28, 2011



Facts:


Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Battung. He claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt, the respondent shouted, “Then cite me!”Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left.


While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” Judge Baculi ocited him for direct contempt of court for the second time.


After his hearings, respondent again shouted in a threatening tone, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” He kept on shouting, “I am not afraid of you!” and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the building.


Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left the courtroom, Atty. Battung continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.



Issue:



Did Atty. Battung violate Cannons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?



Ruling:



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.



Jurisprudence

I decided to create a blog, summarizing recent cases decided by the Supreme Court. But instead of creating a new blog, I decided to retain this blog and then focus on those legal cases, while my other blog, www.jakieandthebeadstalk.blogspot.com, will be more personal.

What say you?

Please watch out for my first case discussion, the case of Baculi vs. Battung.

Thanks!