Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the SC should inhibit itself from taking upon the administrative proceeding on the grounds that
Gonzales cannot expect due process and impartial judgement from the Court
COURT: NO
RATIO: (Please refer to the doctrine) a) At play here are the inherent power to discipline attorneys and the contempt
power. Between the two, the former is broader than the power to punish for contempt. Contempt may be committed both
by lawyers and non-lawyers in and out of the court. However, if the contemnor is a lawyer, then it constitutes as a
professional misconduct that warrants the disciplinary authority of the SC.
b) Said power is corollary to the Courts exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not just a professional, but
a member of Court. Any act which can obstruct the administration of justice constitutes not only professional misconduct,
but also contumacious conduct warranting the application of contempt power.
c) In its exercise of the two powers, the Court is NOT acting as an offended party, prosecutor, and judge at the same time.
Its disciplinary proceeding is sui generis and is neither civil nor criminal. It is an investigation by the Court into the
conduct of its officers. Its purpose is to preserve the purity of legal profession and the proper and honest administration of
justice. SC acts as a collegiate court so it is an entity separate and distinct from individual members. (In Re Almacen
case).
d) To ask the Court to inhibit will be tantamount to asking them to abdicate their Constitutionally-mandated
responsibility. It is also not necessary for the Court to disclaim any bias against Gonzales that would prevent them from
acting. Reference to the IBP or SolGen is not an exclusive procedure under Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court.
e) The proceeding is not addressed to the fact that Gonzales criticized the court. It is addressed rather to the nature and
manner it was carried out.
2. Whether or not the statements made by Gonzeles are contumacious or as warranting exercise for the
disciplinary authority
COURT: YES, it has been established that the respondent made the following points:
-
Supreme Court in its per curiam decision was an act of retaliation against him for his position that the Supreme
Court justices cannot claim immunity from suit or investigation by government prosecutors and that he was stopped
from investigating cases involving protgs or friends of the Justices.
SC improperly pressured him to decide in favour of colleagues and friends of the Court, even the dismissal cases of
two of its members. (Was alleged with the submission of handwritten notes)
The Court dismissed judges without rhyme or reason and disbarred lawyers without due process
RATIO: The statements were baseless. Gonzales tried to paint the Court as an unjudicial institution that can render
erroneous decisions as reprisal against critics and can deny judges and lawyers due process of law.
a) The Courts decision couldnt have been an act of retaliation because as early as Sept. 10, 1987, Gonzales authority to
act as Tanodbayan had already been questioned. This was 7 months before the Court rendered its assailed decision and 8
months before the TRO. (Before Gonzales issued the statements in the media). Said notes had no relation to the issues in
the criminal cases. Gonzales third accusation also didnt connect with his other statements.
b) He has not been denied due process. The respondents in administrative cases he cited were all given opportunity to
explain their side and submit evidence in support thereof which are required in due process. Doesnt have to be a trialtype proceeding.
c) The universe of the Court revolves around the daily demands of law and justice and duty, not around a respondent or
any other person.
d) Proof of actual injury sustained by the Court from his statement is not essential for a finding of contempt or for the
application of the disciplinary authority of the Court.
3. Whether or not Gonzales was acting in the exercise of his constitutional right of free speech and that he was
protected under the doctrines of qualified privileged communication and fair criticism in public interest, therefore
he shouldnt be held liable for contempt
COURT: NO
RATIO: a) Constitutional guarantee of free speech is not absolute and that this freedom must be adjusted and
accommodated with the requirements of an equally important public interest maintenance of the integrity and orderly
functioning of the administration of justice
b) Hes a Special Prosecutor, with duties to the Republic and Supreme Court, and with a heavier burden to uphold its
dignity and to promote it than a private practicing lawyer.
c) His criticisms of the Court must be bona fide. In the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged
that members of the Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.
4. Whether or not the punishment for contempt is the proper remedy (Respondent wanted a libel suit)
COURT: YES
RATIO: Although a libel suit is an available remedy of the individual members of the Court against the respondent, its
not exclusive. Gonzales falsely attacked the Court as an institution so libel suits cannot be an adequate remedy.
VERDICT: Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until further
orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately