Case Digest (G.R. No. 79690-707)
Facts:
Enrique A. Zaldivar v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan and Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez, G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578, October 07, 1988, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.
Petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar was accused in several graft cases that the Office of the Tanodbayan (Special Prosecutor) had preliminarily investigated and filed with the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Cases Nos. 12159–12161, 12163–12177, originally TBP Case No. 86‑00778). On 10 September 1987 Zaldivar filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (G.R. Nos. 79690–707) attacking the Tanodbayan’s authority under the 1987 Constitution and the Sandiganbayan’s 1 September 1987 resolution denying his motion to quash; the Court required respondents to comment and issued on 11 September 1987 a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining the Sandiganbayan from proceeding insofar as Zaldivar was concerned.
Zaldivar filed a second petition (G.R. No. 80578) on 19 November 1987 challenging another Tanodbayan resolution; the Court required a comment and on 24 November 1987 issued a TRO restraining respondent Raul Gonzalez from further acting in TBP Case No. 87‑01304. Despite that TRO, the Tanodbayan filed Criminal Case No. 12570 with the Sandiganbayan on 20 November 1987 and the Sandiganbayan issued arrest orders on 23 November 1987; the Supreme Court in turn issued a TRO on 8 December 1987 enjoining both Gonzalez and the Sandiganbayan from enforcing the arrest order in Case No. 12570 and later consolidated the petitions.
On 9 February 1988 Zaldivar filed a Motion to Cite in Contempt against respondent Gonzalez, alleging (1) improper filing of the Sandiganbayan information in Case No. 12570 notwithstanding the TROs, and (2) certain public statements Gonzalez made to the press. The Court required Gonzalez to comment on the contempt motion. On 27 April 1988 this Court granted Zaldivar’s consolidated petitions, nullified the informations filed against him, and ordered Gonzalez to cease and desist from exercising the powers of the Ombudsman. Gonzalez filed a motion for reconsideration on 28 April 1988 that repeated and expanded public allegations (including that members of the Court had “interceded” for persons with cases before the Tanodbayan) and attached handwritten notes he claimed came from justices; he either released or repeated those assertions to the press.
By Resolution of 2 May 1988 the Court required Gonzalez to explain why he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative sanctions for public statements reported in several newspapers; Gonzalez sought extensions, moved for inhibition of certain justices, asked transfer of the administrative proceeding to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and filed multiple motions and explanations. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should respondent Raul M. Gonzalez’s motions for inhibition of members of the Court and for transfer of the disciplinary proceedings to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines be granted?
- Do the public statements made by respondent Gonzalez constitute contempt of court and/or professional misconduct warranting disciplinary sanctions?
- Does respondent Gonzalez’s constitutional right to freedom of speech (and related privileges) protect him from contempt citation and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)