A.M. No. 88-4-5433 - IN RE: Gonzalez

Case Summary (A.M. No. 88-4-5433)

Petitioner and Respondent / Nature of Referral

The indorsement dated 16 March 1988 requested Justice Fernan to comment within ten days on a letter-complaint and an accompanying telegram. The matters forwarded implicated policy questions of importance, prompting Justice Fernan to bring the indorsement to the attention of the Court en banc.

Attachments and Allegations

The indorsement contained two attachments: (1) an anonymous letter from the "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" addressed to Raul M. Gonzalez, referring to disbarment charges filed by Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan and asking for the Tanodbayan's intervention; and (2) a telegram from Miguel Cuenco to Raul M. Gonzalez stating that pleadings Cuenco filed on 29 February 1988 in Administrative Case No. 3135 made any intervention by Gonzalez improper, while encouraging Gonzalez to file a responsive pleading with the Supreme Court en banc to comply with the petition of the Concerned Employees asking for Tanodbayan's intervention.

Procedural History and Prior Court Action

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to furnish Raul M. Gonzalez a copy of the Court's per curiam Resolution dated 17 February 1988 in Administrative Case No. 3135 (Miguel Cuenco v. Hon. Marcelo B. Fernan). In that Resolution the Court dismissed Cuenco's disbarment charges against Justice Fernan for utter lack of merit and required Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for making unfounded serious accusations. Cuenco was granted an extension until 30 March 1988 to file a motion for reconsideration. On 28 March 1988 Cuenco filed an omnibus pleading treated by the Court as a Motion for Reconsideration; by per curiam Resolution dated 15 April 1988 the Court denied with finality Cuenco’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Controlling Constitutional Rule

The Court articulated a succinct constitutional principle: a public officer whose position requires membership in the Philippine Bar and who may be removed from office only by impeachment cannot, during incumbency, be charged with disbarment. Further, such an officer cannot, during incumbency, be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with an offense that carries the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty the service of which would amount to removal from office.

Application of the Rule in the 17 February 1988 Resolution

In the 17 February 1988 Resolution the Court explained that Members of the Supreme Court must be members of the Philippine Bar under Article VIII (7) (1) of the Constitution and may be removed from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2]). Granting a complaint for disbarment against a Member of the Court during incumbency would effectively circumvent the constitutional mandate that such Members may be removed only by impeachment for offenses listed in Article XI (2). The Court identified analogous situations for the Ombudsman and deputies, a majority of the Commission on Elections, and members of the Commission on Audit who are not certified public accountants, insofar as they are also constitutionally required to be members of the Bar and removable only by impeachment.

Precedential Authority (Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan)

The Court relied on prior pronouncements in Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, which recognized that while certain courts have broad jurisdiction over public officers and employees, exceptions exist for constitutional officers removable only by impeachment. Lecaroz cited provisions of the prior constitution and Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando’s exposition that judgment in impeachment is limited to removal and disqualification, and that a party convicted in impeachment remains liable to prosecution and punishment according to law. From this, the Court drew the implication that criminal actions against such officers during incumbency would not prosper unless the constitutional impeachment process had first been carried out.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

The Court cited Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, noting Sec. 2 (identifying persons removable by impeachment) and Sec. 3(7), which provides that judgment in impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office, but that the convicted party shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law. These provisions were used to explain the procedural sequencing required before administrative or criminal sanctions that effectively remove an officer can be pursued.

Clarification on Immunity and Procedural Requirement

The Court explicitly clarified that it was not conferring substantive immunity from liability for criminal acts or ethical vi

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 88-4-5433)

Procedural History

The matter involves a 1st Indorsement dated 16 March 1988 from Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez, identified as "Tanodbayan /Special Prosecutor," which was forwarded to Mr. Justice Marcelo B. Fernan with a request for "comment within ten (10) days from receipt hereof."
Mr. Justice Marcelo B. Fernan brought the 1st Indorsement to the attention of the Court en banc because of the important implications of policy raised by the indorsement.
The 1st Indorsement contained two attachments: (1) an anonymous letter by "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" dated 14 December 1987, and (2) a copy of a telegram from Mr. Miguel Cuenco.
The Court directed the Clerk of Court to furnish Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez a copy of a prior per curiam Resolution dated 17 February 1988 in Administrative Case No. 3135, titled "Miguel Cuenco v. Honorable Marcelo B. Fernan."
At Mr. Cuenco's request, the Court granted an extension until 30 March 1988 to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the 17 February 1988 Resolution.
On 28 March 1988, Mr. Cuenco filed a pleading that appeared to be an omnibus pleading including, inter alia, matters relating to Administrative Case No. 3135; the Court treated that pleading as a Motion for Reconsideration.
By a per curiam Resolution dated 15 April 1988, the Court denied with finality Mr. Cuenco's Motion for Reconsideration.

Factual Background (as presented in the Indorsement and attachments)

The anonymous letter from "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" was addressed to Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez and referred to charges for disbarment allegedly brought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco against Mr. Justice Marcelo B. Fernan; the anonymous letter asked Mr. Gonzalez "to do something about this."
The telegram from Mr. Miguel Cuenco to Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez referred to pleadings Mr. Cuenco apparently filed on 29 February 1988 with the Supreme Court in Administrative Case No. 3135, which Cuenco believed made any "intervention" by Mr. Raul Gonzalez improper.
Despite asserting impropriety of intervention, Mr. Cuenco encouraged Mr. Gonzalez "to file responsive pleading Supreme Court en banc to comply with Petition Concerned Employees Supreme Court asking Tanodbayan's intervention."

Attachments to the 1st Indorsement

Attachment 1: Anonymous letter-complaint dated 14 December 1987 by "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" addressing Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez and referencing disbarment charges purportedly by Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan.
Attachment 2: Copy of a telegram from Miguel Cuenco to Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez referring to pleadings filed on 29 February 1988 in Administrative Case No. 3135 and encouraging responsive pleading by the Tanodbayan before the Supreme Court en banc.

Prior Resolution in Administrative Case No. 3135 (Per Curiam Resolution dated 17 February 1988)

The per curiam Resolution in Miguel Cuenco v. Honorable Marcelo B. Fernan resolved to dismiss the charges made by complainant Cuenco against Mr. Justice Fernan for utter lack of merit.
The same Resolution required complainant Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for making unfounded serious accusations against Mr. Justice Fernan.
The Court's 17 February 1988 Resolution explained an additional constitutional reason mandating dismissal of the complaint for disbarment during incumbency of a Member of the Court, grounded on provisions requiring membership in the Philippine Bar and removal only by impeachment.

Court's Directives and Subsequent Actions

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to furnish Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez a copy of the per curiam 17 February 1988 Resolution in Administrative Case No. 3135.
The Clerk of Court was further directed to serve a copy of the present Resolution upon Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez and upon Mr. Miguel Cuenco.
The Court treated the pleading filed by Mr. Cuenco on 28 March 1988, insofar as it related to Administrative Case No. 3135, as a Motion for Reconsideration.
By per curiam Resolution dated 15 April 1988, the Court denied with finality Mr. Cuenco's Motion for Reconsideration.

Fundamental Constitutional Principle Stated by the Court

The Court succinctly formulated the constitutional principle involved: a public officer who, under the Constitution, is required to be a member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment cannot be charged with disbarment during his incumbency.
Further, such a public officer, during incumbency, cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty the service of which would amount to removal from office.

Court's Explanation and Elaboration of the Rule

The Court explained that granting a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during incumbency would in effect