FACTS:
Zaldivar was the
governor of Antique and was charged before the Sandiganbayan for
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then
Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court
a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of
the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a
Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain
from investigating and filing informations against
Zaldivar. Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed
criminal informations against Zaldivar. Respondent Gonzalez has also asserted that the Court
was preventing him from prosecuting "rich and powerful persons," that
the Court was in effect discrimination between the rich and powerful on the one
hand and the poor and defenseless upon the other, and allowing "rich and
powerful" accused persons to go "scot-free" while presumably
allowing or affirming the conviction of poor and small offenders.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt
against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain
his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in
the newspapers were
true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to
criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the Court may
have lapsed into error.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of
contempt.
HELD:
YES. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly
constitute contempt and call for the
exercise of the disciplinary authority of the
Supreme Court. According to Canon
11: A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. It is one of
the bounded duties of an attorney to observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officer (Section 20 [b], Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court). His statements necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office.
Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the
entire system of administration of
justice in the country. Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of
free speech. What Gonzalez 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 Supreme Court as the embodiment and the
repository of the judicial power in the government of
the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and
authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in
the administration of justice is heavier than that
of a private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the
rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In the case at bar,
his statements, particularly the
one where he alleged that members of the
Supreme Court approached him, are
of no relation to the Zaldivar case.
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.
ACCORDINGLY, 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.
