Zaldivar vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No, 79690-707 – October 7, 1988
Per Curiam

Topic: Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
Petitioner: Enrique A. Zaldivar
Respondent: The Honorable Sandiganbayan and the Honorable Raul M. Gonzales, claiming to be and acting as
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution

Facts:
● Petitioner Enrique Zaldivar, governor of Antique, was one of the several defendants in Criminal Cases for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act pending before the Sandiganbayan.
● Petitioner filed a case against both the Sandiganbayan and respondent Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez acting as
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman. Petitioner alleged that the latter, as Tanodbayan was no longer vested with power and
authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft and corruption against public
officials and employees, under the 1987 Constitution, hence the cases filed were all null and void.
● The Court then issued a TRO ordering respondents Gonzalez and Sandiganbayan to cease and desist in further
investigating and arrest of the petitioner.
● However, Gonzales continued filing a case against Zaldivar and also issued allegedly contemptuous statements to
the media in the November 30, 1987 issue of the “Philippine Daily Globe,” explicitly stating that SC is favoring
rich and the influential persons over the ordinary litigant. The latter also said, that while the President had been
prodding him to prosecute graft cases, even if they involve the high and mighty, the SC had been restraining him
to do his official duties. This prompted Zaldivar to file a motion for contempt to Gonzales.
● SC ordered Gonzales to explain himself. The principal defense of respondent Gonzalez is that he was merely
exercising his constitutional right of free speech. He also invokes the related doctrines of qualified privileged
communications and fair criticism in the public interest.

Issue: W/N respondent Gonzales is guilty of contempt

Held: YES
● The Court has inherent power to punish for contempt the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including
lawyers and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. This power is necessary for
its own protection against an improper interference with the due administration of justice, and not dependent upon
the complaint of any of the parties litigant.
● A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he shares the responsibility of
dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert,
or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the
exercise of disciplinary action against him, and contumacious conduct warranting application of the
contempt power of the court.
● With regard to respondent Gonzalez’ contention of free speech, he is entitled to this constitutional guarantee and
no one seeks to deny him that right, least of all this Court. However, this freedom is not absolute, and needs, on
occasion, to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of
these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration
of justice.
● The Court is compelled to hold that the statements made by Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the
exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. Respondent’s statements, especially the charge that
the Court deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust decision, necessarily implying that the justices of the
Court betrayed their oath of office, constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Court. Such statements very
clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of
justice in the country.
● Respondent’s statements which accuse the Court of dismissing judges without rhyme or reason and disbarring
lawyers without due process, are also completely baseless and unfounded.
○ Had respondent undertaken to examine the records of the two (2) judges and the attorney he later
identified, he would have discovered that the respondents in those administrative cases had ample
opportunity to explain their side and submit evidence in support thereof.
○ Due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations, require the trial-type
proceeding, that the essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to
 submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either
through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
● Lastly, the statements issued in the Philippine Daily Globe asserting that the Court was preventing him from
prosecuting rich and powerful persons, can only be regarded as calculated to present the Court in an extremely
bad light.
● His accusations constitute a violation of Canon 10, which states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good
faith to the court. In re: Almacen, the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bonafide and shall
not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand,
and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.

Ruling: Respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of
the court and member of the Bar. Accordingly, the 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.