Case Summary (G.R. No. 214986)
Key Dates
• October 11, 2014 – Killing of Jeffrey Laude in Olongapo City
• October 22, 2014 – Intrusion incident at Camp Aguinaldo by petitioner and clients
• November 4, 2014 – AFP files disbarment complaint against Roque before the IBP
• February 15, 2017 – Supreme Court decision
Procedural Background
Roque filed a petition for indirect contempt under Rule 139-B, Section 18, alleging respondents publicly threatened and disclosed confidential disbarment proceedings, damaging his reputation and violating the confidentiality rule. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing their statements were official, concerned a public issue, and protected by freedom of expression.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – guarantees freedom of speech and due process
• Rules of Court, Rule 139-B, Section 18 – “Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.”
• Rules of Court, Rule 71, Section 3 – defines indirect contempt, requiring written charge and hearing for punishable acts that impede or degrade justice
Issue
Whether respondents’ press statements threatening and announcing a disbarment complaint against Atty. Roque constituted contempt for breaching the confidentiality rule.
Analysis
Confidentiality Rule’s Purpose
– Protects lawyers from reputational harm via premature publicity of disciplinary proceedings (Relativo v. De Leon; Fortun v. Quinsayas).
– Not absolute: public interest may justify disclosure (Palad v. Solis).Nature of Respondents’ Statements
– Pre-filing threats: no pending proceedings existed to keep confidential.
– November 4 press release: merely announced the filing of a verified disbarment complaint, without divulging complaint details or substantive allegations.Freedom of Expression and Public Concern
– The Laude–Pemberton case was a matter of national interest; Pemberton’s custody and camp security breach were widely reported.
– Respondents acted in their official capacity to address public concern over camp security.
– Precedents (Webb v. De Leon; In re Lozano; Cabansag v. Fernandez) require a “clear and present danger” or actual impairment of judicial proceedings before contempt lies. No such danger arose here.Balance of Interests
– Contempt power must not be used vindicti
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 214986)
Facts of the Case
- On October 11, 2014, Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude, a 26-year-old Filipino, was allegedly murdered by U.S. Marine Private Joseph Scott Pemberton in Olongapo City.
- Nearly a month later, Philippine authorities could not secure Pemberton’s latent fingerprints or oral swabs because he remained under U.S. custody aboard a ship.
- Media and public debate ensued over who held custody of Pemberton.
- Pemberton was transferred to an AFP-controlled facility at Camp Aguinaldo but Philippine authorities maintained that formal custody remained with the United States until formal charges were filed.
- On October 22, 2014, Pemberton was brought into Camp Aguinaldo’s Mutual Defense Board–Security Engagement Board (MDB-SEB) compound.
- Atty. Harry Roque, Jr., representing Laude’s family and German national Marc Sueselbeck, attempted to gain entry to see Pemberton despite gate closures and explicit instructions from military police not to enter.
- Military witnesses attested that Roque and his clients forced their way past guards at Gate 6 Bravo and subsequent security lines, scaled perimeter fences, and verbally abused officers to compel access.
- Respondents allege these acts constituted a serious breach of military security and public order within a restricted zone.
Procedural Background
- Atty. Roque filed a Petition to Cite for Indirect Contempt against Gen. Catapang, Brig. Gen. Ang, and Lt. Col. Cabunoc for alleged violations of Rule 139-B, Section 18 (confidentiality of attorney-discipline proceedings).
- In response to the intrusion incident, AFP authorities publicly announced consideration of disbarment proceedings against Roque through press statements and media interviews.
- On November 3–4, 2014, Lt. Col. Cabunoc confirmed that a verified disbarment complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and he distributed an official press statement outlining the basis for that complaint.
- Roque publicly tweeted his intent to answer the AFP’s complaint and threatened to file graft charges against the AFP for allowing U.S. custody over Pemberton.
- Roque assailed respondents’ public announcements as contumacious violations of the confidentiality rule and sought to hold them in indirect contempt.
Issues Presented
- Whether the respondents’ public threats and announcements regarding disbarment proceedings violate the confidentiality rule in Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the confidentiality rule may be overridden by the public-interest exception when disciplinary actions involve matters of public concern.
- Whether respondents may invoke public-interest or “public figure” defenses in contempt proceedings.
- Whether non‐lawyer military officers can be held in contempt for alleged breaches of attorney‐discipline confidentiality.
Applicable Legal Principles
- Rule 139-B, Section 18 (Confidentiality): “Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.”
- Rule 71, Section 3 (Indirect Contempt): Enumerates misbehavior or public disclosures that may amount to indirect contempt after notice and hearing.
- Jurisprudence balancing confidentiality of lawyer‐discipline proceedings against freedom of expression and public right to information (e.g., Palad v. Solis, Fortun v. Quinsayas).
- Public trials and publicity doctrine in criminal cases do not automatically taint proceedings (e.g., Webb v. De Leon, Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia).
- Contempt power must be exercised sparingly, preserving freedom of speech and press (e.g., In re Kelly, Cabansag v. Fernandez, People v. Castelo).
Court’s Analysis
- The confidentiality rule protects the substance of disciplinary proceedings, not mere announcements that a verified complaint has been filed.
- Prior to November 4, 2014, no formal proceedings existed; public threats of disbarment were premature and disclosed no confidential details.
- The offic