Case Summary (A.C. No. 13521)
Prior Incidents Reflecting Pattern of Misconduct
The January 4, 2022 Resolution noted multiple prior episodes of Atty. Gadon’s unbecoming conduct:
- Threatening violence against Muslim communities
- Insulting former Chief Justice Sereno’s supporters and flipping off bystanders
- Openly expressing readiness to be disbarred to continue aggressive tactics
- Misbehavior during Sereno’s impeachment proceedings
- Maliciously alleging on radio that former President Aquino III died of HIV
Grounds for Administrative Charges
The Court determined that Atty. Gadon’s language contravened:
– Rule 7.03 of the 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility (now Section 2, Canon II of the CPRA) prohibiting scandalous conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law
– Sections 3(e) and 12 of RA 11313, constituting prima facie gender-based online sexual harassment
Show-Cause Order and Preventive Suspension
Pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27, the Court ordered Atty. Gadon to file a Comment why he should not be disbarred and imposed immediate preventive suspension to forestall further reputational harm to the Bar.
Respondent’s Defenses in Comment
Atty. Gadon argued:
– Due-process violation in premature preventive suspension under Rule 139-B, Section 15
– Double standard comparing his conduct to other high-profile lawyers and political figures
– Alleged bias of Justices Leonen and Caguioa, moving for their inhibition
– Claim that the video was private, intended solely for Robles, and that RA 11313 did not apply since his expletives were not gender-based
Denial of Inhibition and Contempt Finding
The Court held that:
– No compulsory or voluntary disqualification grounds existed under Rule 137, Section 1 or the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 8
– Alleged bias was unsubstantiated conjecture, failing the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard
– Atty. Gadon’s insinuations of partiality against two Justices constituted direct contempt of court (Rule 71, Section 1) and violated Section 14, Canon II of the CPRA
Retroactive Application of the CPRA
Although the conduct occurred under the repealed CPR, the newly effective CPRA (May 30, 2023) applies retroactively to all pending cases. The Court evaluated Atty. Gadon’s actions under the CPRA’s enhanced professionalism standards.
Fitness to Practice Law and Moral Character
Under the 1987 Constitution and longstanding jurisprudence, good moral character is essential for Bar membership. Atty. Gadon’s repeated vulgar and misogynistic language, whether public or private, demonstrated scandalous behavior and a lack of respect for courts and colleagues, violating Sections 2, 3, 4, and 36 of Canon II of the CPRA.
Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment
The Court affirmed that unwanted, offensive sexual remarks directed at Robles met the threshold of gender-based online sexual harassment under RA 11313, independent of the victim’s subjective feeling of threat.
Aggravating Circumstances and Prior Administrative Liability
Atty. Gadon had previously been administratively sanctioned (three-month suspension in Mendoza v. Gadon) and faced multiple pending complaints before the IBP and the
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13521)
Facts and Origin of the Proceedings
- The Supreme Court, En Banc, on its own motion under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, initiated Administrative Case No. 13521 against Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon for a video clip in which he hurled profanities at journalist Raissa Robles.
- The subject video clip was recorded inside a parked car, where Atty. Gadon furiously cursed Robles—“Hoy, Raissa Robles, puki ng ina mo… magpakantot ka sa aso”—and accused her of falsely claiming former Davao City Mayor Rodrigo “BBM” Duterte did not pay taxes despite a BIR certification.
- This was not an isolated incident; the Court noted at least five prior episodes of Gadon’s public misconduct, including threats of violence against Muslim communities, obscene gestures and insults directed at Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s supporters, calls for his own disbarment rather than restraint, rude behavior during Sereno’s impeachment, and malicious radio imputations about President Aquino’s cause of death.
Legal Provisions Invoked
- Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) Rule 7.03: Prohibits conduct “that adversely reflects on [a lawyer’s] fitness to practice law” or scandalous behavior in public or private life.
- Republic Act No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act), Sections 3(e) and 12: Defines and penalizes gender-based online sexual harassment, including unwanted sexual remarks and intimidation through ICT.
- Rules of Court, Section 27, Rule 138: Grants the Court the power to discipline members of the bar for acts showing unfitness to practice.
- Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA): Newly enacted code, with retroactive application to pending cases, superseding the CPR.
Procedural History
- January 4, 2022: The Court issued a Resolution taking cognizance of the viral video, placed Atty. Gadon on preventive suspension, and directed him to show cause why he should not be disbarred.
- Atty. Gadon filed a Comment contesting (a) the preventive suspension for alleged due-process lapses, (b) applicability of the Safe Spaces Act, (c) gender-based harassment characterization, and (d) partiality of Justices Leonen and Caguioa.
- Robles filed a parallel criminal complaint before the Quezon City Prosecutor charging Gadon with qualified violation of the Safe Spaces Act, cyber libel under R.A. 10175, and libel under the Revised Penal Code.
- The Int