A.C. No. 13842 - Garrido vs. Gadon

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13842)

Key Dates and Procedural History

Impeachment complaint by Gadon dated August 2, 2017; House Committee hearings including November 22, 2017 (where Gadon testified) and hearings in February 2018; Garrido, Jr.’s administrative complaint filed with IBP‑CBD (docketed CBD Case No. 18‑5810); IBP‑CBD Report and Recommendation issued August 4, 2022 (recommended two‑year suspension); IBP‑BOG Resolution dated January 28, 2023 (modified recommendation to three‑year suspension); Supreme Court administrative decision resolving the case (en banc).

Allegations in the IBP Complaint

Garrido, Jr. sought disbarment of Gadon on two principal grounds: (1) that Gadon knowingly made false statements in his verified impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Sereno — specifically alleging that Sereno falsified a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in G.R. Nos. 206844‑45 — and (2) that Gadon filed baseless criminal or graft cases to harass several Supreme Court officials and employees. The impeachment verification sworn by Gadon asserted that allegations were “true and correct of [his] personal knowledge or based on authentic documents.”

Factual Basis Presented at the House Hearing

At the November 22, 2017 House Committee on Justice hearing, Gadon admitted his information about the alleged falsified TRO originated from a newspaper account and a reporter (Jomar Canlas) and that his confirmations were based on secondary sources rather than his own personal knowledge or authenticated documents. He conceded he had not seen the draft TRO nor possessed the purported authentic records when he made the allegation. Justice De Castro publicly denied the claim, and the reporter later denied being Gadon’s source under oath.

Respondent’s Position Before the IBP and Supreme Court

Gadon, in his Answer and position papers, characterized the administrative complaint as vague and lacking proof that he violated ethics norms. He contested Garrido, Jr.’s standing or personal knowledge and relied generally on subsequent developments (including assertions about Republic v. Sereno) to defend the substance of his impeachment allegations. He did not offer an account that refuted the House hearing admissions that the allegation derived from secondary sources and that he had not personally possessed the purported draft or authentic records.

IBP‑CBD Findings and Recommendation

The IBP‑CBD found that Gadon’s allegation that Chief Justice Sereno falsified a TRO was based on hearsay and that his verification was therefore “knowingly” false. The IBP‑CBD concluded Gadon may have committed perjury in the verification and recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years with warning. The IBP‑CBD did not find sufficient proof that the graft/criminal cases he filed against Court officials were baseless, and so imposed no penalty on that particular allegation.

IBP‑BOG Action

The IBP‑BOG modified the IBP‑CBD recommendation, increasing the recommended suspension to three years. The IBP‑BOG cited aggravating factors including recidivism, apparent lying under oath, prior disciplinary recommendations, and a recent Supreme Court directive placing Gadon under indefinite suspension.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issues were whether Gadon committed perjury in the verification of his impeachment complaint by representing that material allegations were based on personal knowledge or authentic records when they were not, whether the filings against court personnel were proven baseless, and what disciplinary sanction the CPRA and precedent warranted given the findings and Gadon’s disciplinary history.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Perjury and Evidence

The Court accepted the IBP‑CBD’s factual findings drawn from the House hearing transcript: Gadon admitted reliance on a newspaper account and secondary confirmations, lacked possession or direct knowledge of the draft TRO, and had no authentic record in hand at the time he swore the verification. Those admissions establish that the sworn verification — asserting personal knowledge or authentic records — was inaccurate and therefore constituted perjury in the verification attached to the impeachment complaint. Gadon offered no satisfactory explanation excusing the false verification.

Treatment of Republic v. Sereno and Its Relevance

The Court explained that Republic v. Sereno (quo warranto) did not amount to an authoritative finding that Sereno falsified any TRO. That quo warranto action addressed qualifications and acts prior to or at appointment, and the Court’s references to certain alleged dishonest acts were sourced from Congressional hearings and were not final adjudications suitable to excuse Gadon’s own unverified allegation. Thus the later judicial disposition did not retroactively justify Gadon’s verification based on hearsay.

Verification Requirement and Professional Responsibility

The Court emphasized the solemnity of verification: it is not a mere formality but an oath assuring verity. Under the 1987 Constitution the verification requirement in impeachment matters is constitutionally mandated; under the CPRA Section 11 a lawyer must not make false representations or statements and must correct inaccuracies when discovered. Gadon’s deliberate inclusion of an allegation he knew was unsupported breached those duties.

Gross Misconduct Determination

Applying CPRA standards and precedent definitions, the Court found Gadon’s conduct rose to Gross Misconduct: it was inexcusable, deliberate, and motivated by bad faith and malicious intent to injure Sereno’s reputation. The Court noted Gadon’s conscious presentation of an unverified, serious allegation in a constitutional process and his apparent intent to advance a personal agenda rather than to present a responsibly substantiated charge.

Aggravating Circumstances and Mitigation Assessment

The Court identified two principal aggravating circumstances: recidivism (Gadon’s prior disciplinary history including a prior disbarment and other sanctions) and lack of remorse. The Court found no mitigating circumstances that would reduce the penalty.

Penalty Imposed and Rationale

Given the

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13842)

Procedural Posture and Docketing

This administrative matter was resolved en banc in A.C. No. 13842 (Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5810), decision dated May 21, 2024, captioned Garrido, Jr. v. Gadon.
The administrative complaint was originally filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) and docketed as CBD Case No. 18-5810. [1]
After due proceedings, the IBP‑CBD issued a Report and Recommendation on August 4, 2022 recommending suspension from the practice of law for two years with stern warning. [6][7]
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Board of Governors (IBP‑BOG) issued a Resolution on January 28, 2023 modifying the recommended suspension to three years after finding aggravating circumstances, and likewise recommending imposition of suspension to be served in succession with other penalties if so affirmed by the Supreme Court. [12][13]
The Supreme Court en banc reviewed the matter and issued the decision now summarized, modifying the IBP‑BOG recommendation and pronouncing the ultimate disposition set out below.

Parties

Complainant: Atty. Wilfredo M. Garrido, Jr. (referred to as Garrido, Jr. in the record).
Respondent: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon (referred to as Gadon).

Nature of Complaint and Relief Sought

Garrido, Jr. sought the disbarment of Gadon on two principal grounds:
- (1) That Gadon engaged in falsehoods in an impeachment complaint he filed before the House of Representatives in August 2017 (specifically alleging falsification of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) of the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 206844‑45); and
- (2) That Gadon filed baseless criminal/graft cases against several Supreme Court officials and employees. [1][2]

Factual Allegations Underlying the Impeachment Complaint

In the impeachment complaint dated August 2, 2017, Gadon verified under oath that the allegations were “true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic documents.” [2]
One key allegation charged that then de facto Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno falsified a Supreme Court TRO in G.R. Nos. 206844‑45 by tampering with and altering a draft TRO purportedly sent by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo‑De Castro and, pursuant thereto, issued a “blanket TRO.” [2]
At the House Committee on Justice hearing on November 22, 2017, Gadon disclosed that his source for the said information was a Manila Times reporter (identified in the record as Jamar/Jomar Canlas), and admitted the allegation was not based on his personal knowledge but on a secondary source. [2][16]
Gadon admitted he had not seen the alleged “draft TRO” nor a copy of the “blanket TRO” and could not identify Supreme Court employees he purportedly contacted; Justice De Castro issued a statement denying Gadon’s claim; the reporter likewise denied under oath being the source for Gadon’s claim. [2]
The impeachment complaint also alleged that Sereno instructed a Supreme Court official to call certain judges (Juanita Guerrero, Amelia Fabros‑Corpuz, and Patria Manalastas‑De Leon) to order non‑issuance of warrants in relation to Senator Leila De Lima’s case; two of those judges denied the allegation during a House Committee hearing. [2]
On February 22, 2018, Gadon publicly threatened to file criminal charges against other Supreme Court officials if Sereno did not resign by March 1, 2018; he stated, inter alia, “Talagang idadamay ko lahat. This will be the end of their careers. Lahat ng pinaghirapan, lahat mawawala. Yan ay mangyayari dahil sa katigasan ng ulo ni Sereno.” Garrido, Jr. alleged Gadon knew such threatened criminal cases were groundless. [2]
Gadon nonetheless filed graft charges against several court officials on March 12, 2018. [2]

Respondent’s Answer and Defenses

Gadon filed an Answer asserting the complaint was vague and unsubstantiated, claiming it failed to state clear and concise facts showing violation of legal ethics. [3][4]
He argued that Garrido, Jr. lacked personal knowledge of the impeachment hearings and thus could not properly complain, and he later sought to rely upon the Supreme Court decision in Republic v. Sereno as exculpatory of his statements. [4][19][20]

IBP‑CBD Findings and Recommendations

The IBP‑CBD found Gadon’s accusation that Chief Justice Sereno falsified the TRO to be based on hearsay as shown during the House Committee hearing; for relying on hearsay in making the accusation, the IBP‑CBD considered that Gadon may have “knowingly executed a false [v]erification.” [8][9][10]
The IBP‑CBD observed Gadon had sworn his impeachment complaint allegations were based on personal knowledge and/or authentic records, yet his hearing admissions contradicted that sworn verification. [9][10]
The IBP‑CBD did not find sufficient proof that Gadon filed baseless criminal cases against Supreme Court officials; it therefore imposed no penalty as to that charge. [11]
The IBP‑CBD recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years with stern warning but did not recommend disbarment given the absence in the record of prior offenses/penalties against Gadon at that time. [7]

IBP‑BOG Resolution and Its Grounds

The IBP‑BOG, on January 28, 2023, modified the IBP‑CBD recommendation to a three‑year suspension, citing aggravation due to recidivism, apparent lying under oath, consideration of prior Board recommendations against Gadon in other CBD cases (CBD Case Nos. 09‑2479, 15‑4649, 15‑4695 [Adm. Case No. 11277], and 18‑5751), and a recent directive of the Supreme Court placing Gadon under indefinite suspension. [12][13]
The IBP‑BOG’s Resolution specifically noted the infraction was aggravated by recidivism and appearances that Gadon was lying under oath. [12][13]

Supreme Court’s Determination — Perjury in Verification

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP‑CBD that Gadon committed perjury in the sworn Verification attached to his impeachment complaint, because he swore the allegations were true of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records when, in truth, the impeachment‑allegation concerning falsification of the TRO was founded on hearsay from a reporter and unverified secondary confirmations. [14][16][17][18]
The Court quoted the House Committee on Justice proceedings (November 22