Title
Fortun vs. Quinsayas
Case
G.R. No. 194578
Decision Date
Feb 13, 2013
Atty. Fortun filed contempt charges over media publication of his disbarment complaint linked to the Maguindanao Massacre. Media acquitted; Atty. Quinsayas fined for breaching confidentiality.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194578)

Key Dates and Procedural History

– November 23, 2009: Ampatuan convoy ambushed and massacred in Maguindanao.
– November 22-23, 2010: Disbarment complaint against Atty. Fortun filed and copies distributed at the Supreme Court.
– February 13, 2013: Decision rendered by the Supreme Court (Second Division).

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution, Article III (freedom of speech and of the press).
– Section 18, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court (confidentiality of disbarment proceedings).
– Rule 71, Section 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (penalties for indirect contempt).
– Privileged-communication doctrine as applied in contempt and libel jurisprudence.

Antecedent Facts

While filing Mangudadatu’s Certificate of Candidacy on November 23, 2009, the convoy was waylaid by armed assailants in Ampatuan municipality, resulting in 57 murders (30 victims were journalists). Multiple murder cases were docketed with the RTC of Quezon City. In November 2010, Mangudadatu et al. filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Fortun (Bar Matter No. A.C. 8827). On November 22-23, 2010, Atty. Quinsayas distributed copies of the complaint to media representatives. Various media outlets reported or broadcasted the filing, detailing allegations of “abuse of legal remedies” by petitioner.

Contempt Issue

Whether respondents violated the confidentiality requirement of disbarment proceedings (Section 18, Rule 139-B), constituting indirect contempt of court by publishing or broadcasting the filing and substance of the complaint before final resolution.

Media Defendants’ Arguments

– Good faith reporting of a matter of public interest (Maguindanao Massacre, petitioner as public figure).
– Qualified privileged communication; absence of malice or intent to influence judicial proceedings.
– Several media entities denied direct involvement or conspiracy, contending that distribution by Atty. Quinsayas preceded media publication.
– ABS-CBN asserted that ANC programming was produced by Sarimanok Network News (SNN), a separate juridical entity, and that former head Maria Ressa was on terminal leave.
– Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (PDI) claimed content syndication with Inquirer.net but lacked sufficient proof of separate legal personality.

Court’s Analysis on Media Liability

– Disbarment proceedings are ordinarily confidential until final determination; confidentiality serves to protect attorneys from irresponsible allegations and shield the Court’s processes from outside influence.
– Media reporting on matters of legitimate public interest—here, developments connected to the Maguindanao Massacre—enjoys constitutional protection under freedom of the press.
– Petitioner failed to prove bad faith, malice, or a conspiracy among media respondents. Their reporting was fair, accurate, and limited to the newsworthiness of the filing.
– The distribution of the disbarment complaint into the public domain by a complainant did not shield media from responsibility; however, given petitioner’s status as a public figure and the massacre’s notoriety, the reporting was justified.
– ABS-CBN was




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.