Title
Roque, Jr. vs. Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 214986
Decision Date
Feb 15, 2017
US Marine Pemberton allegedly killed transgender woman Laude; disbarment case arose after lawyer Roque's protest at Camp Aguinaldo. SC ruled public statements on disbarment did not violate confidentiality, balancing public interest and freedom of expression.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 214986)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Petition
    • Petitioner Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. filed a Petition to Cite for Indirect Contempt under Rule 139-B, Section 18, against respondents Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang (AFP Chief of Staff), Brig. Gen. Arthur Ang (Camp Commander), and Lt. Col. Harold Cabunoc (AFP Public Affairs Office Chief).
    • Petitioner alleged respondents publicly threatened and disclosed the filing and pendency of a disbarment complaint against him, in violation of the confidentiality rule.
  • October 22, 2014 Camp Aguinaldo Incident
    • Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude was killed by US Marine Joseph Scott Pemberton on October 11, 2014; custody became a public issue when Pemberton was transferred to a facility at Camp Aguinaldo’s Mutual Defense Board-Security Engagement Board (MDB-SEB).
    • Petitioner, Laude’s family, and accompanying media forced entry through closed gates, scaled a perimeter fence, and confronted military police to see Pemberton, despite instructions to stay outside.
  • Disbarment Proceedings and Press Statements
    • Respondents publicly announced consideration of a disbarment complaint (reported October 30 and November 4, 2014) and subsequently filed a verified disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on November 4, 2014.
    • AFP released an official press statement summarizing only that a complaint had been filed for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, without disclosing complaint details.
    • Petitioner claimed these announcements were contumacious violations of the confidentiality rule and impugned his professional reputation; respondents invoked public interest, good faith, and non-lawyer status as defenses.

Issues:

  • Whether a violation of the confidentiality rule (Rule 139-B, Section 18) constitutes contempt of court.
  • Whether respondents’ public pronouncements violated Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
  • Whether public interest is a valid defense in contempt proceedings for alleged confidentiality breaches.
  • Whether non-lawyers (military officers) may be punished for contempt of court.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.