Case Summary (G.R. No. 79690-707)
Petitioner
Enrique A. Zaldivar, private individual initiating the petition.
Respondent
Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez, acting Tanodbayan-Ombudsman and former officer of the Court, found guilty of contempt and gross misconduct.
Key Dates
• Original Resolution: May 2, 1988 (order to explain)
• Per Curiam Resolution: October 7, 1988 (conviction and sanctions)
• Motion for Reconsideration filed: October 18, 1988
• Ex-Parte Manifestation and Supplemental Manifestation: October 25 & 27, 1988
• Decision on Motion: February 1, 1989
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly provisions on judicial independence and integrity
• Revised Rules of Court
– Rule 71, Section 3(d) (contempt definitions)
– Rule 71, Section 1 (summary punishment for direct contempt)
– Rule 139 (procedures for suspension or disbarment of attorneys)
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, upon its own motion, initiated contempt and disciplinary proceedings against Gonzalez for statements made in pleadings and to the media that challenged the Court’s integrity. After affording Garcia ample opportunity to defend himself, the Court issued a per curiam Resolution finding him guilty of contempt in facie curiae and gross misconduct, imposing indefinite suspension from practice. Gonzalez then moved for reconsideration, raising ten legal points.
Issue A: Characterization of Contempt
Gonzalez argued that the Court erred in treating his misconduct as direct contempt rather than indirect. The Court clarified that it did not mechanically equate “in facie curiae” with the technical phrase “direct contempt,” but described Gonzalez’s conduct—both in filings and public statements—as a frontal assault on the judiciary’s integrity. Although it could have imposed summary punishment under Rule 71, Section 1, it instead conducted full proceedings, inviting explanations and evidence before convicting him.
Issue C: Referral under Rule 139(b)
Counsel contended that proceedings should have been referred to the Solicitor General or Integrated Bar of the Philippines under Rule 139(b). The Court explained that referral is neither mandatory nor exclusive when it initiates charges motu proprio. Rule 139’s procedure for complaints under oath by another person applies only to cases triggered by external complaint. Here, the Court found no need for further investigation, as Gonzalez’s admissions of making the contested statements were undisputed, and the issues presented were legal and policy questions for the Court itself.
Issue D: Standard for Limiting Speech
Gonzalez urged application of the “clear and present danger” test instead of the Court’s reference to “visible tendency.” The Court pointed out that it was merely paraphrasing Rule 71, Section 3(d), which penalizes conduct “tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.” Philippine jurisprudence recognizes both the “clear and present danger” and the “balancing-of-interests” tests as permissible means of assessing free-speech limits. Under either standard, Gonzalez’s statements—aimed at undermining the Supreme Court’s authority—exceeded constitutional protections.
Issue H: Relevance of Intent
Gonzalez claimed that his subjective intent to respect the Court should preclude a finding of misconduct. The Court held that psychological subjectivity is irrelevant; intent must be inferred from external acts and statements. A bare disclaimer cannot override the natural and plain import of words and conduct. Moreover, Gonzalez offered no apology or evidence of repentance, underscoring the seriousness of his contempt.
Issue I: Out-of-Court Publications
Counsel argued that punishing
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 79690-707)
Case Citation
- 252 Phil. 1 (En Banc), G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and 80578, February 1, 1989
- Per curiam Resolution dated October 7, 1988; Motion for Reconsideration filed October 18, 1988
Parties
- Petitioner: Enrique A. Zaldivar
- Respondents:
• The Honorable Sandiganbayan
• Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez, acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution
Procedural Background
- Supreme Court issued a per curiam Resolution (October 7, 1988) finding respondent Gonzalez guilty of contempt and gross misconduct
- Respondent Gonzalez filed a Motion for Reconsideration (October 18, 1988) contesting various rulings
- Court reviewed the Motion and the extended per curiam Resolution and found no basis to modify its conclusions
Motion for Reconsideration: Ten Legal Points
- Point A: Alleged error in charging indirect contempt but convicting for direct contempt
- Point C: Alleged misapplication of Rule 139(b) instead of Rule 139
- Point D: Challenge to use of “visible tendency” rule over “clear and present danger” test
- Point H: Claim that intent must be considered in misconduct charges
- Point I: Objection to punishing out-of-court publications as contempt
- Point J: Assertion that indefinite suspension is cruel or inhuman punishment
Contempt and Misconduct Findings
- Court characterized respondent’s acts and statements as contempt “in the face of the court” and gross misconduct
- Emphasized that respondent was heard, allowe