ZALDIVAR v.

GONZALES
166 SCRA 316 (1988)
Per curiam / alo

SUBJECT MATTER: Supreme Court > Administrative powers > Admission to the Practice of Law

CASE SUMMARY:

Gonzales, as Tanodbayan, conducted preliminary investigations and filed criminal charges against Zaldivar
with the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Zaldivar filed a motion
for certiorari and prohibition, which the court granted by issuing a TRO against the Office of the
Tanodbayan, ordering the latter to cease and desist the investigation and filing of criminal charges.
Nevertheless, Gonzales continued the proceedings, thus disobeying the courts orders, and also issuing
statements in the media besmirching the integrity of the court. The SC found Gonzales guilty of contempt
and gross misconduct, leading to his indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

DOCTRINES:

v The Supreme Court exercises two related powers;

FACTS:

v Petitioner Zaldivar (Governor of Antique) is one of several defendants in Criminal Cases Nos.
12159-12161 and 12163-12177 (for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) pending
before the Sandiganbayan.
v The Office of the Tanodbayan conducted the preliminary investigation and filed the criminal
informations in those cases (originally TBP Case No. 86-00778).
v On 10 September 1987, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
mandamus naming as respondents both the Sandiganbayan and Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez
(Tanodbayan). Among other things, petitioner assailed:
o The Resolution of the "Tanodbayan" recommending the filing of criminal informations
against petitioner Zaldivar and his co-accused
o The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to Quash the criminal informations
filed in those cases by the "Tanodbayan."
In this respect, petitioner alleged that respondent Gonzalez, as Tanodbayan and
under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was no longer vested with power and
authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft and
corruption against public officials and employees, and hence that the information
filed were all null and void.
v The Supreme Court issued a TRO, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from
the same, ordering respondent Sandiganbayan to CEASE and DESIST from hearing and trying.
v Petitioner Zaldivar filed with the SC a second Petition for certiorari and Prohibition on 19 November
1987, initially naming only Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez as respondent.
o That Petition assailed the Resolution of the "Tanodbayan" recommending that additional
criminal charges for graft and corruption be filed against petitioner Zaldivar and five (5)
other individuals.
v In a Resolution, the SC, without giving due course to the second petition issued a TRO ordering
respondent Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez to CEASE and DESIST from further acting in the criminal cases
and particularly, from filing the criminal information consequent thereof and from conducting
preliminary investigation therein.
v In the meantime, however, on 20 November 1987 or four (4) days prior to issuance by the SC of a
TRO, the Office of the Tanodbayan instituted Criminal Case No. 12570 with the Sandiganbayan
which issued on 23 November 1987 an Order of Arrest for petitioner Zaldivar and his co-accused.
 v On 9 February 1988, petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a Motion to Cite in Contempt directed
at respondent Gonzalez. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in:
o having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570
before the Sandiganbayan
o issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the
proceedings
It is alleged that Gonzales said the following in an exclusive interview with the Daily
Globe: What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that
while rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, it is
difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
v On 16 February 1988, the SC:
o Granted the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner Zaldivar and nullified the criminal
informations filed against him in the Sandiganbayan
o Ordered respondent Raul Gonzalez to cease and desist from conducting investigations and
filing criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan or otherwise exercising the powers and
functions of the Ombudsman
v A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by respondent Gonzalez the next day, 28 April 1988. In his
Motion, respondent Gonzalez, after having argued the legal merits of his position, made the
following statements totally unrelated to any legal issue raised either in the Court's Decision or in
his own Motion:
o That he "ha(d) been approached twice by a leading member of the court ... and he was
asked to 'go slow on Zaldivar and 'not to be too hard on him' "
o That he "was approached and asked to refrain from investigating the COA report on illegal
disbursements in the Supreme Court because 'it will embarass the Court
o That "(i)n several instances, the undersigned respondent was called over the phone by a
leading member of the Court and was asked to dismiss the cases against (two Members of
the Court)."
v It appearing that respondent Gonzalez has made public statements to the media which not only
deal with matters subjudice but also appear offensive to and disrespectful of the Court and its
individual members and calculated, directly or indirectly, to bring the Court into disrepute, discredit
and ridicule and to denigrate and degrade the administration of justice, the Court Resolved to
require respondent Gonzalez to explain in writing within ten (10) days from notice hereof, why he
should not be punished for contempt of court and/or subjected to administrative sanctions for
making such public statements reported in the media.
v Respondent Gonzalez subsequently filed with the SCon 9 May 1988 an Omnibus Motion for
Extension and Inhibition alleging, among other things:
o The SC resolution "appears to have overturned that presumption [of innocence] against
him"
o "he gravely doubts whether that 'cold neutrality [of an impartial judge] is still available to
him" there being allegedly "at least 4 members of this Tribunal who will not be able to sit in
judgment with substantial sobriety and neutrality."
v On 19 May 1988, after receipt of respondent's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, the SC in
an extended per curiam Resolution denied the Motion and Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration. That denial was made "final and immediately executory.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON respondent Gonzales is guilty of contempt (YES)

HOLDING:

1. YES. In this case, the Supreme Court displays two related powers:
v The Supreme Court, as regulator and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary disciplinary
authority over attorneys. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's
constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well
authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Quite apart from this constitutional mandate, the
disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over members of the Bar is an inherent power
incidental to the proper administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial
functions.
 v Moreover, the Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the
furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all
other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. The power to punish for
contempt is "necessary for its own protection against an improper interference with the due
administration of justice," "(it) is not dependent upon the complaint of any of the parties
litigant.

Respondent Gonzalez was in effect saying that the Supreme Court deliberately rendered an
erroneous or wrong decision when it rendered its per curiam Decision dated 27 April 1988 in G.R.
Nos. 79690-707 and 80578. The Court cannot ignore the seriousness of the assault thus
undertaken by respondent against it and the appalling implications of such assault for the integrity
of the system of administration of justice in our country.

The Court is compelled to hold that the statements here made by respondent Gonzalez clearly
constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court.
Respondent's statements, especially the charge that the Court deliberately rendered an erroneous
and unjust decision in the Consolidated Petitions, necessarily implying that the justices of this
Court betrayed their oath of office, merely to wreak vengeance upon the respondent here,
constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Court. Such statements very clearly debase and
degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice
in the country.

The principal defense of respondent Gonzalez is that he was merely exercising his constitutional
right of free speech. He also invokes the related doctrines of qualified privileged communications
and fair criticism in the public interest.

Respondent Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. No one seeks to
deny him that right, least of all the Court. What respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of
speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of
expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of
equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of
the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between
free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice.

Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who
owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Court as the embodiment and the
repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of the
respondent "to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court' and "not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.

The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae
and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

DISPOSITIVE: The Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely
and until further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.