Case Summary (G.R. No. 203080)
Factual Background and Viral Video
A short clip surfaced online wherein Atty. Gadon, inside a parked car addressing the camera, hurled repeated profanities and sexually explicit invectives at journalist Raissa Robles, including exhortations that she be “fucked by a dog” and repeated “putang ina mo” and “puki ng ina mo.” The video went viral across social media. The Court noted that the clip was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of public behavior that previously generated administrative concerns.
Court’s Initial Resolution and Preventive Action
Responding to public urging, on January 4, 2022 the Court issued a Resolution taking cognizance of the video, finding prima facie violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and potential gender-based online sexual harassment under the Safe Spaces Act. The Court ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred, placed him on preventive suspension from practice of law effective immediately, and directed the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to provide records of pending administrative matters against him.
Prior Incidents Noted by the Court
The Court catalogued several prior incidents evidencing respondent’s pattern of intemperate or scandalous conduct: threats against Muslim communities during insurgency-related commentary; public insults and obscene gestures directed at Chief Justice Sereno’s supporters; alleged arrogant and dishonest behavior during impeachment proceedings; and an imputation on a radio program concerning the cause of death of a former president. These prior matters formed part of the Court’s assessment of respondent’s fitness to continue in the profession.
Respondent’s Comment and Defenses
In his Comment, Atty. Gadon challenged the preventive suspension as violative of due process, alleging it was imposed before he could file an answer under Rule 139-B. He denied posting the video himself, asserting it was intended only for Robles, and contended his language was a passion-driven defense of President Marcos against alleged libelous tweets by Robles. He argued the expletives targeted her journalistic role, not her gender, and invoked precedent describing common usage of certain expletives as expressive of anger rather than slander.
Criminal Complaints and Relevant Online Materials
Respondent acknowledged a criminal complaint filed by Robles before the Quezon City Prosecutor for alleged qualified violation of the Safe Spaces Act, cyber libel, and libel. He also cited a series of Robles’ tweets criticizing Bongbong Marcos and contended those tweets were false and libelous, which he offered as context and provocation for the recorded tirade.
Motion to Inhibit and Court’s Response
Respondent moved for the inhibition of Justices Leonen and Caguioa, alleging bias connected to his political ties to the Marcoses and his past criticisms of those Justices. The Court analyzed Rule 137 (disqualification) and the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (Rule 8 on inhibition) and found no compulsory or voluntary disqualification grounds supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court emphasized the En Banc nature of the January 4, 2022 Resolution and the presumption of regularity in judicial acts, concluding the inhibition motion lacked merit and was conjectural.
Contempt Finding for Baseless Accusations
The Court held that Atty. Gadon’s insinuations of improper motive and his baseless accusations against the two Justices constituted direct contempt of court. It applied precedents that unfounded attacks that impair respect for the judiciary and amount to misbehavior before the Court may be punished summarily. For that contempt, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000 pursuant to Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
Retroactive Application of the CPRA to Pending Cases
Although the conduct occurred while the older CPR was in force, the Court explained that the CPRA (effective May 30, 2023) contains an express transitory provision applying it to all pending cases and thus the CPRA governs the present administrative proceeding. The Court therefore evaluated respondent’s conduct against the CPRA’s provisions on propriety, safe environment, gender-fair language, and responsible use of social media.
Legality of Preventive Suspension in Disbarment Proceedings
The Court rejected respondent’s due process argument regarding preventive suspension, explaining that administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against lawyers are sui generis and primarily aimed at protecting the public and the integrity of the Bar. Because respondent’s recorded conduct was scandalous, widely disseminated, and the authorship undisputed, immediate preventive suspension was proper to prevent further erosion of public confidence and to preserve the Court’s disciplinary authority.
Standards for Lawyer Conduct and Application to Respondent
Under the CPRA, a lawyer must act with civility, dignity, and avoid conduct that discredits the profession; lawyers must also avoid creating unsafe or hostile environments and must use gender-fair language. The Court held these standards are stricter than those applicable to ordinary citizens and rejected respondent’s claim that the expletives were merely expressive of anger or targeted only at the journalistic role of Robles. The Court found the language misogynistic, sexist, and objectively scandalous, and that a lawyer should have resorted to dignified legal discourse rather than profanities.
Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment and the Safe Spaces Act
The Court treated the video’s content as prima facie gender-based online sexual harassment under Sections 3(e) and 12 of Republic Act No. 11313, noting that the Act penalizes online conduct likely to cause mental, emotional, or psychological distress through unwanted sexual, misogynistic, or sexist remarks whether public or private. The Court clarified that the victim’s subjective report of not feeling threatened does not negate the potential for the perpetrator’s acts to cause or be likely to cause such distress; liability focuses on the actor’s conduct.
Social Media, Private Recording, and Responsi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 203080)
Procedural Posture
- Administrative case initiated by the Supreme Court En Banc under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court following the surfacing and viral dissemination of a video clip of Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon lashing out and uttering profanities against journalist Raissa Robles.
- Court issued a Resolution dated January 4, 2022 taking cognizance of the subject video clip and directing respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred; respondent was placed on preventive suspension from the practice of law effective immediately.
- The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) were directed to submit an updated list and status report of pending administrative cases against Atty. Gadon.
- Decision rendered by the Court En Banc, disbarring Atty. Gadon and imposing a fine for direct contempt; Decision dated June 27, 2023 (A.C. No. 13521).
Facts (Subject Video and Conduct)
- Subject video clip shows Atty. Gadon speaking to a camera while inside a parked car, angrily gesturing and repeatedly uttering profane, obscene, and misogynistic expressions directed at Raissa Robles.
- Direct quotations from the video as recorded in the resolution include repeated expletives: "Hoy, Raissa Robles, puki ng ina mo, hindot ka. Putang ina mo... Ano'ng pinagsasabi mong hindi nagbayad si BBM ng taxes? May certification 'yan galing sa BIR. Puking ina mo! Hindot ka! Putang ina mo, Raissa Robles! Magpakantot ka sa aso!"
- The video went viral on various social media platforms, prompting public urging for Court action.
Prior Conduct and Pattern Noted by the Court
- The Court noted prior public conduct by Atty. Gadon evidencing a pattern:
- Vowed to "pulverize" Muslim communities if they did not cooperate in addressing insurgency and expressed readiness to exterminate innocents and burn houses if they ignored his plea.
- Called supporters of former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno "bobo," flashed his middle finger outside the Court compound in Baguio City, and declared, "I don't care if I am disbarred..."
- Stated he had no regrets for cursing at supporters and suggested filing to be disbarred if that was the only constraint to retaliate.
- Alleged acts of dishonesty, arrogance and rudeness during impeachment proceedings against former Chief Justice Sereno.
- Maliciously imputed on a radio program that former President Benigno C. Aquino III died of HIV.
- The Court considered these past incidents in assessing respondent’s fitness for the practice of law.
Legal Grounds Asserted by the Court
- Court found Atty. Gadon’s language in the video violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) (prohibition on conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice and scandalous behavior), which is incorporated and amended under the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Canon II Section 2.
- Court also found the video constitutive of prima facie gender-based online sexual harassment under Sections 3(e) and 12 of Republic Act No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act).
- Court invoked its disciplinary jurisdiction and ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred; preventive suspension was imposed immediately to protect the public interest and the integrity of the profession.
Respondent’s Comment and Defenses
- Procedural objections:
- Argued preventive suspension was imposed without due process because it was ordered before the Court received his formal answer or before the lapse of the period to file one under Section 15, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
- Contended preventive suspension had no basis in law.
- Substantive defenses:
- Claimed provocation by alleged false and libelous tweets of Raissa Robles concerning alleged tax evasion by "BBM" and provided a series of Robles’ tweets (with dates and quoted content) to show the purported provocations.
- Asserted the video was recorded out of passion to rebuke Robles and was made privately inside his car for the sole purpose of sending it directly to Robles; denied posting or uploading it to social media.
- Contended his expletives were an attack on Robles as a journalist, not because of her gender, and thus R.A. No. 11313 was inapplicable.
- Cited jurisprudence (Reyes v. People) to argue that certain profanities may be commonly used to express anger, not to slander.
- Alleged selective or politically motivated initiation of proceedings, pointing to other public figures (Senator Leila De Lima, Atty. Jose Manuel "Chel" Diokno) and his ties to the Marcoses; moved for inhibition of Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa on grounds of alleged bias.
Criminal Complaints Mentioned by Respondent
- Respondent detailed a criminal complaint filed by Robles before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, charging him with:
- One count of qualified violation of the Safe Spaces Act (Section 15(a), R.A. 11313), allegedly committed on or about 13 December 2021.
- One count of cyber libel (Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175), allegedly on or about 21 December 2021.
- One count of libel (Article 353, Revised Penal Code), allegedly on or about 21 December 2021.
Issue Presented
- Central question: Should Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon be disbarred?
Court’s Holding
- The Court found Atty. Gadon unfit to remain a member of the legal profession and imposed the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
- Atty. Gadon was also found guilty of direct contempt of court for making unfounded allegations of partiality against Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa; he was fined Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for direct contempt, payable within ten days from receipt of the Decision.
Reasons: Moral Character and the Nature of Disbarment Proceedings
- Emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege reserved for those of good moral character; possession and appearance of good moral character are core qualifications for bar membership (citing preced