Case Summary (A.M. No. 93-2-037 SC)
Jurado’s Publications on Alleged Judicial Corruption
From October 1992 to March 1993, Jurado’s Manila Standard column “Opinion” accused groups of judges—dubbed “Magnificent Seven,” “Dirty Dozen,” and unnamed former Court of Appeals justices—of fixing cases for bribes, selling decisions, and other improprieties based on anonymous and confidential sources.
Yerkes Controversy and PLDT-ETPI Decision
Following a 9–4 Supreme Court decision favoring PLDT in G.R. No. 94374 (Aug. 27 1992), a publicized linguist’s affidavit alleged Justice Gutierrez’s opinion was ghost-written by PLDT’s lawyer. The ensuing furor on judicial integrity set the backdrop for Jurado’s February 8 1993 column claiming a public utility financed a luxury Hong Kong trip for six justices.
PLDT’s Denials in Samson’s Affidavit
On February 10 1993, Samson swore that PLDT had never sponsored any such trip, had no knowledge of it, had not dealt with Jurado, and paid no travel agencies for justices’ vacations. He requested the Court take “appropriate action.”
Veto’s Affidavit on Equitable Bank Luncheon
Also on February 10 1993, in-house counsel William Veto declared that a January 5 birthday lunch attended by judges was hosted and funded personally, not by Equitable Bank, contradicting Jurado’s report of a bank-hosted event.
Ad Hoc Committee Invitations and Non-appearance
Per Administrative Order No. 11-93, the Ad Hoc Committee invited Jurado on February 4 and reiterated on February 5, 1993, to assist its corruption inquiry. Jurado declined, stating his published columns sufficed and alleging procedural flaws.
Supreme Court’s Initial Resolutions and Jurado’s Comment
By Resolution of February 16 1993, the Court docketed PLDT’s letter and Veto’s affidavit as a contempt proceeding, summoned replies from travel agencies, and directed Jurado to file a Comment within 15 days. On March 1 1993, Jurado apologized superficially for non-appearance, invoked journalistic privilege under RA 53, and refused to disclose sources, asserting reliance on their confidentiality and accuracy.
Travel Agency Affidavits and Supplemental Filings
Travel agencies denied arranging any justice trips, prompting a March 2 1993 Resolution for Jurado to comment on their affidavits. On March 15, he filed a Supplemental Comment disputing his capacity (journalist vs. lawyer) and sought clarification on why he was singled out.
Jurado’s Manifestation on Court Authority
On March 31 1993, Jurado moved to terminate the proceeding, arguing the Court lacks supervisory power over press work, that no contempt charge was pending under Rule 71, and that his input belonged before the Ad Hoc Committee alongside other journalists.
Norms Governing Press Freedom and Judicial Dignity
The Court drew from:
• Zaldivar v. Gonzalez (1988)—free expression is not absolute and must align with public interest in an independent judiciary;
• Civil Code Article 19—rights must be exercised with justice, honesty, and good faith;
• Journalist’s Code of Ethics—mandating scrupulous accuracy, airing the other side, prompt corrections;
• The right to private reputation—even judges cannot forfeit their personal honor.
Analysis of the “Public Utility Firm” Allegation
Jurado’s February 8 column insinuated PLDT bribed six justices for favorable votes by financing a Hong Kong trip. Samson’s categorical denials and travel‐agency affidavits placed upon Jurado the burden to prove his accusation or explain honest error. He failed to do so, relying solely on anonymous sources, thus displaying reckless disregard for truth and breaching journalistic duties.
Analysis of the Equitable Bank Luncheon Report
Jurado’s January 12 and 28 columns falsely described a bank-hosted luncheon for justices. Veto’s affidavit showed the event was privately funded. Jurado offered no substantive rebuttal or prior verification, violating the Code’s requirement to verify essential facts and present the opposing view.
Analysis of Other Defamatory Columns
Similar patterns emerged in Jurado’s other writings—accusations against “Magnificent Seven” justices voting as a bloc, “Dirty Dozen” judges auctioning decisions, a former Court of Appeals justice fixing cases, and improprieties by the Judi
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 93-2-037 SC)
Facts and Antecedents
- Emiliano P. Jurado, a Manila Standard columnist who “incidentally happens to be a lawyer,” published a series of columns (October 1992–March 1993) alleging widespread corruption among judges and justices.
- He coined epithets such as the “Magnificent Seven” (two separate groups, one in Makati RTCs, another in the Supreme Court), the “Dirty Dozen” (twelve allegedly graft-ridden Makati judges), and reported secret dealings by an unnamed former Court of Appeals justice.
- Jurado also wrote that six Supreme Court justices and their families vacationed in Hong Kong at the expense of “a public utility firm,” and that Equitable Banking Corporation “hosted a lunch at its penthouse” for various members of the judiciary.
- In response to persistent media and anonymous reports of corruption, Chief Justice Narvasa issued Administrative Order No. 11-93 (Jan. 25, 1993) creating an Ad Hoc Committee to “ascertain the truth” of such allegations through closed-door interviews and evidence-gathering.
- The Committee invited Jurado to testify on February 4 and 11–12, 1993, but he did not appear, explaining later that his invitations were either delivered too late or not routed to him.
Controverting Affidavits and Official Letters
- PLDT First Vice-President Vicente R. Samson (Feb. 10, 1993 affidavit) categorically denied that PLDT financed any Hong Kong trip for Supreme Court justices or arranged such a trip through its travel agencies.
- Atty. William Veto (Feb. 10, 1993 affidavit), in-house counsel of Equitable Banking Corporation, swore that his January 5, 1993 luncheon for justices and judges was hosted and funded entirely by him, not by the bank.
- Presidents of the two travel agencies (Philway Travel Corporation and Citi-World Travel Mart Corporation) submitted affidavits (Feb. 19–22, 1993) denying any arrangements for a justice family trip to Hong Kong.
Procedural Chronology
- February 16, 1993: Supreme Court Resolution dockets the PLDT letter and affidavit as an official court proceeding, directs service of copies on Jurado, PLDT’s travel agencies, and requires sworn statements from those agencies and a comment from Jurado within prescribed periods.
- March 1, 1993: Jurado files his Comment, asserting fair comment, reliance on confidential sources, and invoking R.A. 53 (amended) to protect his news sources.
- March 2, 1993: Court receives travel-agency affidavits and orders Jurado to comment further within ten days.
- March 15, 1993: Jurado submits a Supplemental Comment with Request for Clarification, reiterating his refusal to reveal sources and questioning the Court’s