A.C. No. 9684 - Boto vs. Villena

Petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar was indicted for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Criminal Cases Nos. 12159-12161, 12163-12177) before the Sandiganbayan; the Office of the Tanodbayan (now Office of the Ombudsman) conducted the preliminary investigation and filed the informations.
Zaldivar questioned the authority of Special Prosecutor Raul M. Gonzalez (claiming to be Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution) to investigate and file graft charges, contending such powers had ceased under the new Charter.

On 10 September 1987, Zaldivar filed a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (G.R. Nos. 79690-707) against the Sandiganbayan and Gonzalez, assailing (a) the Tanodbayan’s 5 February 1987 resolution recommending the graft filings and (b) the Sandiganbayan’s 1 September 1987 resolution denying his motion to quash.
On 11 September 1987, the Supreme Court required respondents to comment and issued a TRO ordering the Sandiganbayan to cease proceedings against Zaldivar.
On 19 November 1987, Zaldivar filed a second petition (G.R. No. 80578) against Gonzalez alone, challenging a 24 September 1987 Tanodbayan resolution recommending additional graft charges; a TRO was issued on 24 November 1987, and the two petitions were consolidated.

Despite the TRO, on 20 November 1987 the Tanodbayan filed a new graft case (Criminal Case No. 12570) in the Sandiganbayan and secured arrest orders on 23 November 1987.
Zaldivar moved for the SC to enjoin enforcement of that order; on 8 December 1987 the SC extended its TRO to enjoin both Gonzalez and the Sandiganbayan from proceeding in Criminal Case No. 12570.
On 9 February 1988, Zaldivar filed a Motion to Cite in Contempt against Gonzalez for (a) causing the filing of Criminal Case No. 12570 in violation of the TRO and (b) making public statements to the media (e.g., Philippine Daily Globe, 30 November 1987) critical of the Supreme Court’s integrity and decisions.

On 27 April 1988, the Court per curiam granted Zaldivar’s consolidated petitions, nullified the criminal informations, and ordered Gonzalez to cease exercising Ombudsman functions.
Gonzalez filed a Motion for Reconsideration (28 April 1988) and, in it and through the press, accused individual Justices of “pressuring” him to act favorably toward their friends and of being prone to favoritism. He attached purported notes from three Justices.
On 2 May 1988, the Court required Gonzalez to explain in writing why he should not be punished for contempt and/or disciplined for his public statements.
Gonzalez filed various motions (extension, inhibition, transfer to IBP, ex parte motions) and submitted two “Explanations” (17 June and 22 July 1988).

Whether the Supreme Court has power to punish for contempt and to discipline a lawyer/officer of the Court under the Constitution and Rules of Court.

Whether the public statements and press releases by Gonzalez constitute contempt of court “in facie curiae” or professional misconduct warranting discipline.