Case Summary (A.C. No. 9923)
Key Dates
December 14, 2012 – IBP Board of Governors issues resolution recommending a one-year suspension for Atty. Palad.
April 23, 2013 – News article in Pilipino Star Ngayon reports his suspension.
May 8, 2013 – Respondent’s live radio interview discloses alleged suspension.
May 10, 2013 – Atty. Palad files a grave slander complaint against Respondent (later dismissed).
Applicable Law
The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. Under the Rules of Court:
• Rule 139-B, Section 18 – requires confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers until the Supreme Court’s final order.
• Rule 71, Section 3 – prescribes indirect contempt, punishable after charge and hearing, for unlawful interference with court processes or administration of justice.
Petitioner’s Allegations
Atty. Palad contends that Respondent’s on-air revelation violated the confidentiality rule of Rule 139-B, Section 18 by prematurely disclosing his suspension, thereby committing indirect contempt. He secured an audio transcript of the interview and maintained that no Supreme Court decision had confirmed his suspension at that time, rendering Respondent’s disclosure both inaccurate and malicious.
Respondent’s Defense
Respondent asserts lack of malice and ignorance of the case’s pendency before the Supreme Court. She claims she referred generically to “the lawyer of Katrina,” relied on the published article in Pilipino Star Ngayon, and believed it reflected a fair and faithful report of a judicial proceeding. She underscores her efforts to minimize publicity of the administrative case and her delegation of its handling to firm associates.
Supplemental Arguments
In reply, Petitioner emphasizes Respondent’s position as senior partner and lead counsel in the disbarment proceedings, arguing it was implausible she remained unaware of the case status. He characterizes her radio remark as a calculated attempt to humiliate him, unconnected to the discussion on privacy laws (RA 9995 and RA 10175) and thus evidencing malice. Respondent’s rejoinder reiterates absence of malice, delegation of case monitoring, and spontaneous nature of her statement.
Legal Framework for Contempt and Press Privilege
The Supreme Court’s contempt power must be used sparingly to preserve court dignity and justice. Indirect contempt encompasses acts interfering with court proceedings or administration of justice. The confidentiality rule shields disciplinary proceedings from public disclosure until final resolution, but it does not impinge on legitimate press reporting of matters of public interest. When a lawyer becomes a public figure by involvement in high-profile controversies, media may report on disciplinary actions as fair comment under the Constitution, provided no actual malice is shown.
Analysis and Application
Atty. Palad’s involvement in a widely publicized video-voyeurism
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9923)
Procedural History
- Atty. Raymund P. Palad filed a petition on October 9, 2019 (A.C. No. 9923) seeking to cite Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan for indirect contempt of court.
- The petition alleged that Atty. Patajo-Kapunan violated the confidentiality rule under Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court by publicly disclosing on DZMM Teleradyo that Atty. Palad had been suspended from the practice of law.
- The parties were given the opportunity to comment, submit memoranda, and be heard before the Court.
Facts of the Case
- On December 14, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors recommended Atty. Palad’s suspension in CBD Case No. 09-2498 (“Hayden Kho, Jr. v. Raymund P. Palad”).
- Atty. Palad moved for reconsideration of that resolution.
- On April 23, 2013, “Pilipino Star Ngayon” published an article reporting his supposed one-year suspension.
- On May 8, 2013, during a live phone‐patch interview with Noli de Castro on DZMM Teleradyo, Atty. Patajo-Kapunan stated that “the lawyer of Katrina has been suspended by the Supreme Court.”
- No final Supreme Court decision confirming any suspension had been issued at that time.
Petitioner’s Allegations
- Atty. Palad contended that Atty. Patajo-Kapunan’s on-air statement violated the confidentiality rule (Section 18, Rule 139-B) by disclosing disciplinary proceedings still pending before the Supreme Court.
- He secured and transcribed an audio recording of the May 8 interview to prove her disclosure was premature and inaccurate.
- He argued that the disclosure damaged his reputation and warranted a finding of indirect contempt.
Respondent’s Comment
- Atty. Patajo-Kapunan asserted she mentioned no names and had no malice or personal spite toward Atty. Palad.
- She explained the statement arose in response to questions on Republic Act Nos. 9995 and 10175 and referred only to “the