Case Digest (A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC)
Facts:
Atty. Rico V. Domingo, Dean Antonio Gabriel M. La Vina, Dean Ma. Soledad Deriquito‑Mawis, Dean Anna Maria D. Abad, Dean Rodel A. Taton, Atty. Artemio P. Calumpong, Atty. Christianne Grace F. Salonga, Atty. Ray Paolo J. Santiago, and Atty. Ayn Ruth Z. Tolentino‑Azarcon v. Lorraine Marie T. Badoy‑Partosa, G.R. No. 263384; consolidated with A.M. No. 22‑09‑16‑SC, promulgated August 15, 2023, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The controversy began after Judge Marlo A. Magdoza‑Malagar of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 19, issued a Resolution dated September 21, 2022 dismissing the Department of Justice’s petition to proscribe the Communist Party of the Philippines‑New People’s Army‑National Democratic Front (CPP‑NPA‑NDF) under the Human Security Act. On September 23–26, 2022, respondent Lorraine Marie T. Badoy‑Partosa (an online personality with a public Facebook account and at least 166,000 followers) published a series of public Facebook posts attacking the judge’s decision, accusing the judge of bias and collaboration with the CPP‑NPA‑NDF, and making explicit violent statements including hypotheticals and exhortations that could be read as calls to kill or bomb judges. Her posts generated numerous supportive and similarly violent comments from followers.
Several legal organizations (including HUKOM, the Philippine Judges Association, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines) issued statements denouncing respondent’s posts. Acting motu proprio, the Court docketed A.M. No. 22‑09‑16‑SC (October 4, 2022), issued a stern warning, and served a Show Cause Order requiring respondent to explain why she should not be cited for contempt. Separately, on October 3, 2022, a group of lawyers filed an Urgent Petition for Indirect Contempt (docketed G.R. No. 263384) asking this Court to cite respondent for indirect contempt. Respondent filed comments and an answer, asserting her posts were fair comment, hypothetical syllogism, and constitutionally protected speech, and denying an intent to threaten. Petitioners replied, asserting (inter alia) their standing as officers of the court and that respon...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do the petitioners in G.R. No. 263384 have legal standing to file the Urgent Petition for Indirect Contempt?
- Should respondent Lorraine Marie T. Badoy‑Partosa be cited for indirect contempt of court for her Facebook statements attacking Judge Magdoza‑Malagar ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)