IN RE: ATTY. LORENZO G.

GADON'S VIRAL VIDEO AGAINST The Court noted in the January 4, 2022 Resolution that this
RAISSA ROBLES was not the first time that Atty. Gadon has displayed similar
behavior in public. Specifically, the Court noted the following
DECISION incidents:

PER CURIAM: 1) Atty. Gadon "Vowed to pulverize Muslim communities if

they will not cooperate in the government's bid to address [the]
This is an administrative case commenced by the insurgency and rebellion problem in the region" and "expressed
Court,1 pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, his readiness to exterminate innocent children, women, men and
against Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon (Atty. Gadon) after a video clip old folks and burn down houses if they ignore his plea to work
(subject video clip) of him lashing out and uttering profanities together with the government."
against Raissa Robles (Robles), a journalist, surfaced online and
went viral on various social media platforms. 2) He notoriously called former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Serena's supporters bobo and flashed them his middle finger
The Facts outside the Court's compound in Baguio City, and even
declared, "I don't care if I am disbarred. I will still eat delicious
food and live comfortably. I don't depend on income from
Urged by the public, the Court issued a Resolution,2 dated
lawyering alone, unlike some IBP officials."
January 4, 2022, taking cognizance of the subject video clip of
Atty. Gadon, who was speaking in front of a camera while inside
a parked car, fuming and cursing at Robles. He lashed out while 3) He also stated that he had no regrets in cursing at former
jabbing his finger towards the camera: Chief Justice Sereno's supporters and would personally ask the
Court to disbar him by saying, "I was thinking of filing a petition in
the Supreme Court to disbar me. If this bar thing is the only thing
Hoy, Raissa Robles, puki ng ina mo, hindot
that will constrain me from getting back at them, then I'd rather
ka. Putang ina mo. Ano'ng pinagsasabi mong
lose my license."
hindi nagbayad si BBM ng taxes? May
certification 'yan galing sa BIR. Puking ina mo!
Hindot ka! Putang ina mo, Raissa Robles! 4) He allegedly committed acts of dishonesty, arrogance and
Magpakantot ka sa aso! Puking ina mo! Hindot rudeness during the impeachment proceedings against [the]
ka! Putang ina mo!3 former Chief Justice Sereno at the House of Representatives.

[Hoy, Raissa Robles, your mother's vulva, fuck you. Your 5) He maliciously imputed in a radio program that former
mother is a whore. Why are you saying that BBM did not pay his President Benigno C. Aquino III died of HIV.4
taxes? There is a certification from the BIR (that he did so). Your
mother's vulva! Fuck you! Your mother is a whore, Raissa The Court found that Atty. Gadon's language in the video
1aшphi1

Robles! Get yourself fucked by a dog! Your mother's vulva! Fuck recording against Robles was violative of Rule 7.03 of the Code
You! Your mother is a whore!] of Professional Responsibility (CPR), not to mention constitutive
of prima facie gender-based online sexual harassment under
Sections 3(e) and 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11313.5 Thus, Atty. Gadon further elaborated in his Comment on the
the Court ordered Atty. Gadon to show cause why he should not criminal complaint10 filed by Robles against him before the Office
be meted the ultimate penalty of disbarment by filing a Comment. of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, charging him with the
The Court likewise placed him on preventive suspension from the following:
practice of law effective immediately.
(a) one (1) count of qualified violation of the Safe Spaces Act, as
In addition, the Court directed the Office of the Bar Confidant defined and penalized under Section 15(a) of R.A. 11313,
(OBC) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to committed on or about 13 December 2021 in Quezon City;
respectively submit an updated list and a status report of the
pending administrative cases against Atty. Gadon. (b) one (1) count of cyber libel, as defined and penalized under
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 committed on or about 21
In his Comment,6 Atty. Gadon averred that the immediate December 2021 in Quezon City; and
imposition of a preventive suspension was without due process
because it was imposed even before the Court received his (c) one (1) count of libel, as defined and penalized under Article 353
answer, or the expiration of the period to file one, as provided in of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed on or about 21
Section 15, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended. He December 2021 in Quezon City.11
likewise argues that his preventive suspension was without any
basis in law.7 Atty. Gadon explained that his behavior in the video clip was
provoked by the following tweets and replies of Robles, under the
Atty. Gadon further expressed that he felt singled out Twitter handle @raissawriter:
because his perceived transgression in the video clip paled in
comparison to Senator Leila De Lima's (Senator De Lima) public December 9, 2021, 6:56 PM:
admission of her affair with married security aide and Atty. Jose
Manuel "Chel" Diokno's (Atty. Diokno) filing of a petition for the
Bongbong Marcos camp says, failure to file income taxes is
issuance of a writ of kalikasan despite being later disowned under
NOT tax evasion. So, since the BIR could not find A SINGLE
oath by his supposed fisherfolk clients.8
COPY OF HIS TAX DECLARATION FORMS as governor, how
does he even prove that he had paid. And isn't failure to pay
According to Atty. Gadon, these circumstances made him taxes the very definition of "tax evasion"?12
wonder if the initiation of the present case was influenced by
extraneous circumstances such as his political and personal
December 9, 2021, 7:45 PM (in response to someone else's
connection to the Marcoses, and his public criticisms of Senior
tweet):
Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen (Senior
Associate Justice Leonen) and Associate Justice Alfredo
Benjamin S. Caguioa (Justice Caguioa). Based on this notion, But you see BIR has no record of payment at all. Either
Atty. Gadon moved for the inhibition of Justices Leonen and witholding (sic) or final taxes. W (sic) BIR you are presumed not
Caguioa from participating in the resolution of the present case.9 to have paid if your earnings reach higher than minimum and
there is no record of payment.13
 December 10, 2021, 11:23 AM (in response to someone As to the finding of the Court that Atty. Gadon's utterances in
else's tweet): the subject video clip could be considered as prima facie gender-
based online sexual harassment under Sections 3(e) and 12 of
True. We should all follow Bongbong Marcos' example of not R.A. 11313, he argued that the said law was not applicable

filing our income taxes. Anyway, it's not tax evasion 😉14
because his expletives were "an attack against her as a journalist
and not by virtue of her gender."21 Moreover, he submitted that
there was no violation of Section 12 of R.A. 11313 because
Robles had apparently stated in an interview conducted on "After
December 10, 2021, 7:43 PM:
the Fact," a program of the ABS-CBN News Channel, that she did
not feel threatened by the subject video clip, but was merely
If Bongbong Marcos wins, I'll do a Bongbong. Wont file my

taxes. Six years. 👍 Yehey! 15

insulted.22 He likewise advanced that his remarks were neither
misogynistic nor sexist because his utterances, "putang ina
mo" and "puki ng ina mo," were made to express anger,
displeasure, and disapproval, not because of any prejudice
December 12, 2011, 8:30 PM (in response to someone else's against Robles with respect to her gender.23 Citing Reyes v.
tweet): People,24 Atty. Gadon emphasized that the phrase "putang ina
mo" was "a common enough expression in the dialect that is
What Bongbong Marcos is doing is fencing stolen goods on often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger
agrand (sic) scale. There is already a Supreme Court decision or displeasure."25
that everything beyond what Ferdinamd (sic) and Imelda Marcos
declared as their assets and earnings are stolen. Bongbong, Considering the foregoing, Atty. Gadon concluded that none
Imelda, Imee and Irene continue to block $$$$.16 of the grounds enumerated under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court were established in the present case. Thus, he
1aшphi1

According to Atty. Gadon, Robles' tweets were false and argued that neither disbarment nor suspension from the practice
libelous.17 Enraged by these purported constant lies peddled by of law should be imposed against him.26
her, he recorded the subject video clip to stop and rebuke
her.18 He claimed that he uttered those words out of passion, in The Issue
order to express his anger, disgust, and displeasure against
Robles.19 Should Atty. Gadon be disbarred?

Atty. Gadon, however, alleged that he did not post or upload The Ruling of the Court
the subject video clip in any social media platform as he intended
to directly send it to Robles, and only for her. On the contrary, he The Court finds that Atty. Gadon has shown himself to be
argued that it was Robles who uploaded the video on social unfit to be part of the legal profession. Thus, the Court imposes
media in order to gain sympathy from friends and supporters and on him the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
to besmirch his name considering that he had just announced his
intention to run for Senator.20
 The Court has always maintained that the practice of law is a After its publication in two newspapers of general circulation on
privilege given to a few, and it is granted only to those of good May 14, 2023, the CPRA took effect 15 days thereafter, or on
moral character.27 In the recent case of Atty. Saludares v. Atty. May 30, 2023.33 Significantly, the CPRA expressly provides that
Saludares,28 the Court emphasized: it shall have a retroactive application, that is, it shall be applied to
all pending cases, including this one.34 Thus, although the act for
Possession of good moral character is a core which Atty. Gadon was ordered to show cause why he should not
qualification for members of the bar.29 "It is be disbarred was committed during the effectivity of the outdated
expected that every lawyer, being an officer of CPR, the Court shall evaluate his act using the provisions of the
the Court, must not only be in fact of good moral new CPRA.
character, but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance There is no reason for Senior Associate Justice Leonen and
with the highest moral standards of the Justice Caguioa to inhibit in the case
community."30 Time and again this Court has
reminded the members of the legal profession At the outset, it must be clarified that Atty. Gadon's prayer to
that "one of the qualifications required of a have Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa
candidate for admission to the bar is the inhibit from this case deserves scant consideration.
possession of good moral character, and, when
one who has already been admitted to the bar The grounds for disqualification of justices or judges are
clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he[/she] found in Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court:
does not follow such moral principles as should
govern the conduct of an upright person, xx x it is
Section 1. Disqualification of judges. — No
the duty of the court, as guardian of the interests
judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in
of society, as well as of the preservation of the
which he[ or she], or his [ or her] wife [or
ideal standard of professional conduct, to make
husband] or child, is pecuniarily interested as
use of its powers to deprive him[/her] of his
heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he
professional attributes which he[/she] so
[or she] is related to either party within the sixth
unworthily abused."31
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel
within the fourth degree, computed according to
Here, the Court finds that Atty. Gadon has shown that he the rules of the civil law, or in which he [or she]
does not possess the good moral character required to remain a has been executor, administrator, guardian,
member of the Bar. trustee or counsel, or in which he [or she] has
presided in any inferior court when his [or her]
At this point, it must be noted that the CPR, under which Atty. ruling or decision is the subject of review, without
Gadon was charged with disbarment, has been expressly the written consent of all parties in interest,
repealed by the new Code of Professional Responsibility and signed by them and entered upon the record.
Accountability (CPRA).32 On April 11, 2023, the Court
unanimously approved the CPRA to make the code governing
lawyers' behavior more responsive to the needs of the times.
 A judge may, in the exercise of his [or her] Here, none of the above considerations, or even
sound discretion, disqualify himself [or circumstances analogous thereto, are present. There is no
herself] from sitting in a case, for just or valid showing that Atty. Gadon was deprived of a fair or impartial trial
reasons other than those mentioned or proceeding. There is likewise no evidence that Senior
above. (Emphasis supplied) Associate Justice Leonen or Justice Caguioa has any personal
interest in the outcome of the case. There is also no proof that
Tan II v. People35 explains the two kinds of inhibitions Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa are
referred to in the above provision, and the considerations for actuated by bias or prejudice against Atty. Gadon based on
which a judge or justice may exercise the discretion to voluntarily something that they learned outside the present case. It is clear
inhibit from a case: that the basis of the January 4, 2022 Resolution is the subject
video clip, together with the past behavior of Atty. Gadon, all of
Two kinds of inhibition are contemplated by the above which the Court has taken note of.
provision. The first paragraph refers to compulsory inhibition,
while the second paragraph refers to voluntary inhibition. The first Even under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC),
paragraph effectively disqualifies a judge from hearing a case there is no ground to support Atty. Gadon's motion to have Senior
where any of the instances enumerated is present. On the other Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa inhibit from the
hand, the second paragraph explicitly submits the resolution of the case. Rule 8 provides:
disqualification to the judge's exercise of his or her sound
discretion. In this case, considering that none of the grounds in RULE 8
the first paragraph were alleged, the RTC judge in this case was Inhibition and Substitution of Members of the Court
being asked to inhibit on the basis of the second paragraph.
SECTION 1. Grounds for Inhibition. — A Member of the Court
Jurisprudence has established various guidelines in the shall inhibit himself or herself from participating in the resolution
evaluation of a judge's exercise of discretion in deciding for or of the case for any of these and similar reasons:
against voluntary inhibition. One consideration is whether the
party moving for a judge's inhibition was deprived a fair and (a) the Member of the Court was the ponente of the decision or
impartial trial. Another is whether the judge had an interest, participated in the proceedings in the appellate or trial court;
personal or otherwise, in the prosecution of the case in question.
The Court also looks into whether the bias and prejudice were (b) the Member of the Court was counsel, partner or member of a law
shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source, the result of firm that is or was the counsel in the case subject to Section 3(c)
which the judge's opinion on the merits was formed on the basis of this rule;
of something outside of what the judge learned from participating
in the case. In every case, bias and prejudice, to be
(c) the Member of the Court or his or her spouse, parent or child is
considered valid grounds for voluntary inhibition of judges,
pecuniarily interested in the case;
must be proved with clear and convincing evidence; bare
allegations of partiality will not suffice.36 (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted) (d) the Member of the Court is related to either party in the case
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to an
 attorney or any member of a law firm who is counsel of record in Election Protest filed by BBM before the
the case within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity; Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). It is also of
public knowledge that prior to the instant case,
(e) the Member of the Court was executor, administrator, guardian or respondent called for these Justices to refund the
trustee in the case; and protest fees deposited by BBM, and that he also
filed an impeachment complaint against Justice
(f) the Member of the Court was an official or is the spouse of an Leonen. Given the foregoing, [i]f Justices
official or former official of a government agency or private entity Leonen and Caguioa had any hand in the
that is a party to the case, and the Justice or his or her spouse issuance of AM. No. 21-12-05-SC [the January 4,
has reviewed or acted on any matter relating to the case. 2022 Resolution] which placed [Atty. Gadon] on
immediate suspension, then he is constrained to
1aшphi1

respectfully move for their voluntary inhibition in

A Member of the Court may in the exercise of his or her
this case as their continued
sound discretion, inhibit himself or herself for a just or valid
participation might not satisfy the demands of
reason other than any of those mentioned above.
the cold neutrality of an impartial judge' (sic)
required as an indispensable imperative of due
The inhibiting Member must state the precise reason for the process.37 (Emphasis supplied)
inhibition.
Atty. Gadon's allegations of partiality are clearly conjectural.
Atty. Gadon did not allege any of the grounds under this There was no showing that Senior Associate Justice Leonen or
provision, and rightly so, as none of them are present in this case. Justice Caguioa "had any hand in the issuance of the January 4,
2022 Resolution, other than their performance of their official
What is manifest in the allegations of Atty. Gadon with adjudicative functions, which is presumed regular, failing
respect to Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa evidence to the contrary. The case of Republic v.
is the lack of clear and convincing evidence of their purported Hachero38 instructs:
bias and prejudice:
xxx In sum, the petitioners have in their favor the presumption
This unusual treatment against [Atty. Gadon] of regularity in the performance of official duties which the records
made him wonder if there are other extraneous failed to rebut. The presumption of regularity of official acts
circumstances or factors that contributed to the may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or
same like his political and personal connection to failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails
the Marcoses, more specifically to his idol, until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing
Ferdinand "Bong-Bong" R. Marcos Jr., or BBM, evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is
and to his public criticisms of two members of this rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment
Most Honorable Court, namely, Justice Marvic will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt
Mario Victor F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) and as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should
Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Justice be in favor of its lawfulness.
Caguioa), for their previous handling of the
 xxxx the Court En Banc, not by any of the Justices in their individual
capacity.
In the same vein, the presumption, disputable though it may
be, that an official duty has been regularly performed applies in For imputing baseless accusations of partiality against Senior
favor of the petitioners. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa, the Court finds
esse acta. (All things are presumed to be correctly and solemnly Atty. Gadon guilty of direct contempt of court. The ruling of the
done.) It was private respondent's burden to overcome this juris Court in Tallado v. Racoma42 anchors this finding:
tantum presumption. We are not persuaded that it has been able
to do so.39 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Indeed, unfounded criticisms against members of the
Judiciary degrade the judicial office and greatly interfere
Besides, the January 4, 2022 Resolution was an act of the with the due performance of their functions in the Judiciary.
entire Court En Banc. Why is Atty. Gadon singling out Senior They not only needlessly drain the resources of the Court in
Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa? resolving them, they sow the seeds of distrust of the public
against members of the Judiciary. x x x.
Atty. Gadon has obviously overlooked the nature of the Court.
In the recent case of Marcos, Jr. v. Robredo,40 the Court xxxx
stressed that it acts as a collegial body:
In Bank of Commerce v. Borromeo, the Court reiterated that
This Court is a collegial body. The Supreme contempt of court is willful disregard of public authority that tends
Court acts on a pending incident or resolves a to, among others, impair the respect due such body:
case either en banc or in division. Decisions are
not rendered in a Justice's individual capacity, but Contempt of court has been defined as a
are, instead, arrived at through a majority vote of willful disregard or disobedience of a public
the Supreme Court's members. The Member-in- authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a
Charge simply recommends the action to be disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or
taken.41 orders of a legislative or judicial body or an
interruption of, its proceedings by disorderly
Thus, any Court decision or resolution, such as the January behavior or insolent language in its presence or
4, 2022 Resolution, does not depend on the whim of any one so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to
Justice. Absent any proof that the January 4, 2022 Resolution impair the respect due such a body. In its
was instigated or facilitated by either Senior Associate Justice restricted and more usual sense, contempt
Leonen or Justice Caguioa, there is no reason for them to inhibit comprehends a despising of the authority,
from participating in the resolution of the case. The pernicious justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase
insinuation is that either or both Senior Associate Justice Leonen contempt of court is generic, embracing within its
and/or Justice Caguioa can impose their will on the rest of the legal signification a variety of different acts.
Court. To stress, the January 4, 2022 Resolution was issued by
 The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, and equivalent to misbehavior committed in the
need not be specifically granted by statute. It lies at the core of presence of or so near a court or judge as to
the administration of a judicial system. Indeed, there ought to be interrupt the administration of justice. x x x.47
no question that courts have the power by virtue of their very
creation to impose silence, respect, and decorum in their It is the duty of a lawyer as an officer of the court to uphold
presence, submission to their lawful mandates, and to preserve the dignity and authority of the courts and to promote confidence
themselves and their officers from the approach and insults of in the fair administration of justice and in the Supreme Court as
pollution. The power to punish for contempt essentially exists the last bulwark of justice and democracy. Respect for the courts
for the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and for guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Without such
the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the guarantee, the institution would be resting on a very shaky
courts, and, consequently, for the due administration of foundation. "When confronted with actions and statements, from
justice. The reason behind the power to punish for contempt lawyers and non-lawyers alike, that tend to promote distrust and
is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their undermine public confidence in the judiciary, this Court will not
institution; without such guarantee, the institution of the hesitate to wield its inherent power to cite any person in
courts would be resting on a very shaky contempt. In so doing, it preserves its honor and dignity and
foundation.43 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) safeguards the morals and ethics of the legal profession."48

In Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management Guided by the foregoing, the Court finds Atty. Gadon guilty of
Association of the Philippines,44 the Court explained that direct contempt of Court for making unfounded accusations
unfounded accusations or allegations, such as those made in this against Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa in
case, constitute direct contempt: his Comment.

Unfounded accusations or allegations or Furthermore, as elucidated in Lorenzo, Atty. Gadon's act

words tending to embarrass the court or to bring violated the lawyer's oath and the CPR, now the CPRA. The
it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. second paragraph of Section 14, Canon II on Propriety is
Their employment serves no useful purpose. On categorical:
the contrary, they constitute direct contempt of
court or contempt in facie curiae and, when Section 14. Remedy for grievances;
committed by a lawyer, a violation of the lawyer's insinuation of improper motive. — A lawyer
oath and a transgression of the Code of shall submit grievances against any officer of a
Professional Responsibility.45 court, tribunal, or other government agency only
through the appropriate remedy and before the
Baculi v. Belen46 expounds: proper authorities.

A pleading containing derogatory, offensive Statements insinuating improper motive on

or malicious statements submitted before a court the part of any such officer, which are not
or judge where the proceedings are pending supported by substantial evidence, shall be
constitutes direct contempt, because it is
 ground for disciplinary action. (Underscoring The pronouncement in Saludares v. Saludares53 likewise
supplied) illumines:

Thus, in addition to the outburst of Atty. Gadon against Administrative cases against members of the
Robles, the Court finds additional ground to hold him legal profession are sui generis, and are not
administratively liable for insinuating malicious accusations affected by the result of any civil or criminal case.
against Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa. It does not even depend on the existence of a
complainant to allow the continuation of the
Atty. Gadon laments that he was placed on preventive proceedings. The primary objective in
suspension even before he formally received a copy of the disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is
January 4, 2022 Resolution. He asserts that under Section 15 of public interest. The fundamental inquiry
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, he could only be suspended revolves around the finding as to whether the
after the Court's receipt of his answer or the lapse of the period to lawyer is still a fit person to be allowed to
file one. He further insists that his suspension was without basis practice law.54 (Emphasis supplied)
in law, like the preventive suspension under R.A. No. 6770,49 the
2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Considering that an administrative case against a member of
(RRACCS) and the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor the Bar is sui generis, preventive suspension as defined under
Code.50 R.A. No. 6770, the RRACCS and the Labor Code, is different in
nature from the preventive suspension in disbarment
Atty. Gadon's submissions are without merit. The Court has proceedings. As clearly discussed in the above rulings, the
consistently held that disbarment cases are sui generis. In Dayos primary issue to be resolved in administrative cases is the fitness
v. Buri,51 the Court held: of a person to be allowed to practice law.

A disbarment case is sui generis for it is Here, the expletives uttered by Atty. Gadon in the subject
neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is video clip are so scandalous and downright offensive that the
rather an investigation by the court into the Court for itself can already say "res ipsa loquitur," i.e., the thing
conduct of its officers. The issue to be speaks for itself, that there is no need to wait for his answer
determined is whether respondent is still fit to before he could be placed on preventive suspension. Considering
continue to be an officer of the court in the that the video had already become viral on social media, the
dispensation of justice. Hence, an Court had to act immediately; otherwise, its disciplinary power
administrative proceeding for disbarment might be rendered inefficacious by the unhampered spread of the
continues despite the desistance of a video clip.
complainant, or failure of the complainant to
prosecute the same, or in this case, the failure of At any rate, as will be discussed below, Atty. Gadon does not
respondent to answer the charges against him deny that he created the video. He only claims that he did not
despite numerous notices.52 (Emphasis circulate it on social media. Considering that the authenticity of
supplied) the subject video clip is undisputed, the immediate suspension of
Atty. Gadon was proper. There was no doubt as to the authorship There is no question that Atty. Gadon's repeated use of the
from the outset. words "puki ng ina mo," "hindot ka," and "putang ina mo," as well
as his utterance of "magpakantot ka sa aso," in the subject video
With regard to his allegations regarding former Senator De clip are profane, to say the least, and indisputably scandalous
Lima and Atty. Diokno, suffice it to say that their circumstances that they discredit the entire legal profession.
have no bearing on this case. Whether they committed
misconduct does not affect the administrative liability of Atty. Atty. Gadon, however, justifies his use of these words by
Gadon, which is entirely distinct and independent. In other words, explaining that they were uttered out of passion in order to
their circumstances are irrelevant to this case. express his anger, disgust and displeasure against Robles.

In the January 4, 2022 Resolution, the Court found that Atty. The Court cannot accept these excuses. Granted that Atty.
Gadon's conduct violated Rule 7.03 of the CPR, which reads: Gadon was only defending President Marcos from the purported
lies of Robles, he was neither justified nor excused in using
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in undignified, abusive and disrespectful language considering his
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to membership in the Bar. Spouses Nuezca v.
practice law, nor shall be whether in public or Villagarcia55 illumines:
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession. Though a lawyer's language may be forceful
and emphatic, it should always be dignified
The said rule was incorporated in a similar and amended rule and respectful, befitting the dignity of the
under the CPRA, and now forms part of Section 2 of Canon II on legal profession. The use of intemperate
Propriety, thus: language and unkind ascriptions has no place in
the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds
SECTION 2. Dignified conduct. — A lawyer with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic
shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and
other government agencies, their officials, illuminating but not offensive. In this regard, all
employees, and processes, and act with lawyers should take heed that they are
courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards licensed officers of the courts who are
fellow members of the bar. mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal
profession, hence, they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly. Thus,
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
respondent ought to temper his words in the
adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law,
performance of his duties as a lawyer and an
nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in
officer of the court.56 (Emphasis supplied;
public or private life. to the discredit of the legal
citations omitted)
profession. (Underscoring supplied)
Here, Atty. Gadon used highly offensive and obscene
language to insult Robles. Directed towards a woman, the
language was misogynistic and sexist, wholly gender was not a lawyer, while Atty. Gadon is. As earlier discussed, the
inappropriate. His claimed defense of President Marcos was lost expectations of a lawyer's conduct, especially with respect to
in all the profanity. In fact, his words did less to defend President one's use of language, is significantly higher than that of ordinary
Marcos, and more to degrade and denigrate the Bar. persons.

Considering that Atty. Gadon believes that there are Atty. Gadon further submits that the subject video clip was
documents contradicting Robles' assertion that President Marcos made in private, explaining that he did not upload the same on
was a tax evader, he could have remained in the realm of social media, as he intended it exclusively for Robles:
dignified legal discourse, using these documents to make solid
arguments, rather than hurling expletives against her. This kind of 38. As can be seen from the foregoing, [Robles] had been
behavior patently falls short of the expected conduct of a lawyer. slandering [Atty. Gadon's] idol, BBM, and branding him not only
Sections 3 and 4 of Canon II of the CPRA provide: as a tax evader but as a grand criminal. Like a true Marcos
loyalist, [Atty. Gadon] was enraged by the constant lies being
SECTION 3. Safe environment; avoid all forms of abuse peddled by [Robles] against the Marcoses, more specifically,
or harassment. — A lawyer shall not create or promote an against [Atty. Gadon's] idol, BBM, which in turn caused him to
unsafe or hostile environment, both in private and public settings, record a private video clip with a view to stop and rebuke
whether online, in workplaces, educational or training institutions, complainant for telling lies against BBM, with the intention of
or in recreational areas. sending the same directly to her;

To this end, a lawyer shall not commit any form of physical, 39. Nevertheless, [Atty. Gadon] neither published nor posted
sexual, psychological, or economic abuse or violence against nor uploaded in any social media platform like Facebook, the
another person. A lawyer is also prohibited from engaging in any subject [video clip], which is unlike what respondent usually does
gender-based harassment or discrimination. in his Facebook page, as the said video clip was intended
solely for the eyes of the complainant. x x x
SECTION 4. Use of dignified, gender-fair, and child- and
culturally-sensitive language. — A lawyer shall use only 40. As [Robles] herself noted, [the subject video clip] was
dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in made privately inside [Atty. Gadon's] car and the unsavory
all personal and professional dealings. words like "Putang-ina mo" and "Puki ng Ina mo" were uttered by
him out of passion and a result of emotional outburst directed
To this end, a lawyer shall not use language which is abusive, solely and exclusively towards [Robles] to express [Atty. Gadon's]
intemperate. offensive or otherwise improper, oral or written, and anger, disgust and displeasure for [her] spreading of malicious
whether made through traditional or electronic means, including lies against [his] idol, BBM, as extensively discussed
all forms or types of mass or social media. (All underscoring above[.]58 (Emphasis supplied)
supplied)
What Atty. Gadon fails to realize is that lawyers, as Section 2
Atty. Gadon cannot take refuge in the case of Reyes v. of Canon II provides, are expected to avoid scandalous
People,57 for the simple reason that the petitioner in that case behavior, whether in public or private life. This is reiterated in
Sections 3 and 4 of the same Canon, which respectively prohibit unrelated to the actual practice of their profession
the creation or promotion of an unsafe or hostile — would show them to be unfit for the office and
environment, both in private and public settings, and command unworthy of the privileges which their license and
the use of dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive the law invest in them.63 (Emphasis supplied)
language in all personal and professional dealings. The Court has
consistently reminded lawyers that they cannot segregate their That Atty. Gadon failed to see that he cannot set apart his
public life from their private affairs. In Velasco v. Causing,59 the professional acts from his private life indicates that he does not
Court emphasized: fully understand the responsibilities that come with the legal
profession. His utterances alone, even if intended only for Robles,
First, a lawyer is not allowed to divide his are reprehensible in themselves. That he did not intend to release
personality as an attorney at one time and a the subject video clip on social media does not make it less
mere citizen at another. Regardless of whether abhorrent.
a lawyer is representing his client in court, acting
as a supposed spokesperson outside of it, or is At any rate, Atty. Gadon's submission that he did not release
merely practicing his right to press freedom as a the subject video clip on social media is unavailing because he
"journalist-blogger "his duties to the society and himself disclosed that he intended Robles to see it. In other
his ethical obligations as a member of the bar words, in one way or another, he intended to share, upload, or
remain unchanged.60 (Italics in the original; otherwise disseminate the subject video clip to other persons,
emphasis supplied) although he claimed he only had Robles in mind. The fact that
Robles got a copy from someone other than Atty. Gadon could
In Belo-Henares v. Guevarra,61 the Court stressed its ruling only mean that he himself shared it with another person.
in Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago,62 that lawyers may be held
administratively liable even for their conduct supposedly As early as 2014, the Court in Vivares v. St. Theresa's
committed in a private capacity: College64 already warned about the risks that come with the use
of social media:
Lawyers may be disciplined even for any
conduct committed in their private [Online Social Network] users should be
capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects aware of the risks that they expose themselves to
their want of probity or good demeanor, a good whenever they engage in cyberspace activities.
character being an essential qualification for the Accordingly, they should be cautious enough to
admission to the practice of law and for control their privacy and to exercise sound
continuance of such privilege. When the Code of discretion regarding how much information about
Professional Responsibility or the Rules of themselves they are willing to give up. Internet
Court speaks of conduct or misconduct, the consumers ought to be aware that, by entering or
reference is not confined to one's behavior uploading any kind of data or information online,
exhibited in connection with the performance they are automatically and inevitably making it
of lawyers' professional duties, but also permanently available online, the perpetuation of
covers any misconduct, which — albeit which is outside the ambit of their control.
 Furthermore, and more importantly, information, (e) Gender-based online sexual harassment refers to an
otherwise private, voluntarily surrendered by online conduct targeted at a particular person that causes or likely
them can be opened, read, or copied by third to cause another mental, emotional or psychological distress, and
parties who may or may not be allowed access to fear of personal safety, sexual harassment acts including
such.65 unwanted sexual remarks and comments, threats, uploading or
sharing of one's photos without consent, video and audio
Mindful of the both the benefits and dangers that come with recordings, cyberstalking and online identity theft;
the use of social media, the CPRA introduced provisions which
mandate its responsible use. Section 36 of Canon II is most SECTION 12. Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment. —
relevant to the present case: Gender-based online sexual harassment includes acts that use
information and communications technology in terrorizing and
SECTION 36. Responsible use. — A lawyer intimidating victims through physical, psychological, and
shall have the duty to understand the benefits, emotional threats, unwanted sexual misogynistic, transphobic,
risks, and ethical implications associated with the homophobic and sexist remarks and comments online whether
use of social media. publicly or through direct and private messages, invasion of
victim's privacy through cyberstalking and incessant messaging,
Thus, Atty. Gadon cannot exculpate himself by claiming that uploading and sharing without the consent of the victim, any form
he "neither published nor posted nor uploaded" the subject video of media that contains photos, voice, or video with sexual content,
clip onto any social media platform. As a lawyer, it was any unauthorized recording and sharing of any of the victim's
reasonable to expect that he understood the consequences of photos, videos, or any information online, impersonating identities
recording the video, its benefits, if any, risks, and ethical of victims online or posting lies about victims to harm their
implications, including the likelihood of it spreading reputation, or filing false abuse reports to online platforms to
indiscriminately, becoming available to anyone on social media, silence victims. (Underscoring supplied)
and the influence that it could have on lawyers and non-lawyers
alike, not to mention the children who have been exposed, or Atty. Gadon contends that the provisions of R.A. No. 11313
have yet to be exposed, to the said video clip. Atty. Gadon failed cannot be appreciated in this case considering that Robles
to take these implications and consequences into account, and in admitted in the ANC interview that she did not feel threatened,
doing so, he likewise failed in upholding the edict to responsibly but only insulted, by Atty. Gadon.66
use social media.
The contention is untenable. The violation of R.A. No. 11313
In addition, the January 4, 2022 Resolution found that Atty. consists in doing acts that cause or are likely to cause mental,
Gadon's remarks against Robles could be considered prima emotional or psychological distress, and fear of personal safety.
facie proof of gender-based online sexual harassment under In other words, the violation pertains to the acts of the
Section 3(e) and 12 of R.A. No. 11313. They provide: perpetrator, not to the reaction of the recipient. Thus, even
assuming for the sake of argument that Robles did not feel
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act: x x x threatened by Atty. Gadon's utterances in the subject video clip,
such reaction does not mean that his behavior did not terrorize or
intimidate her, or otherwise cause her mental, emotional or The power to disbar or suspend ought always
psychological distress, or fear for her personal safety. to be exercised on the preservative and not on
the vindictive principle, with great caution and
The Court is mindful that Robles filed a criminal complaint only for the most weighty reasons and only on
which includes one charge for violation of R.A. No. 11313 against clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect
Atty. Gadon. Hence, it shall no longer dwell on the merits of the the standing and character of the lawyer as an
imputation of criminal liability. officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only
those acts which cause loss of moral
For the direct contempt committed against the Court, a fine of character should merit disbarment or
₱2,000.00 is imposed on Atty. Gadon, pursuant to Section suspension, while those acts which neither affect
1,67 Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. nor erode the moral character of the lawyer
should only justify a lesser sanction unless they
are of such nature and to such extent as to
For his administrative liability, the pronouncement of the
clearly show the lawyer's unfitness to continue in
Court in Advincula v. Macabata,68 as reiterated in the recent
the practice of law. The dubious character of the
case of Saludares v. Saludares,69 instructs:
act charged as well as the motivation which
induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly
[x x x] When deciding upon the appropriate demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is
sanction, the Court must consider that the meted out. The mitigating or aggravating
primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings circumstances that attended the commission of
are to protect the public; to foster public the offense should also be
confidence in the Bar; to preserve the considered.70 (Emphasis supplied; citations
integrity of the profession; and to deter other omitted)
lawyers from similar misconduct. Disciplinary
proceedings are means of protecting the
In determining the penalty, the Court shall consider Atty.
administration of justice by requiring those who
Gadon's violation of the lawyer's oath and Section 14 of Canon II
carry out this important function to be competent,
of the CPRA for insinuating baseless accusations against Senior
honorable and reliable men in whom courts and
Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa.
clients may repose confidence. While it is
discretionary upon the Court to impose a
particular sanction that it may deem proper Moreover, the Court also takes judicial notice of the previous
against an erring lawyer, it should neither be administrative case of Atty. Gadon, Mendoza v. Atty. Gadon,71 in
arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal which the penalty of suspension was imposed on him for three
animosity or prejudice, but should ever be months. In that case, he was already warned to be more
controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously circumspect with his actions in times of emotional outbursts:
guard the purity and independence of the bar and
to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with his Atty. Gadon should be more circumspect in his actions and
duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in should control himself better in time of emotion outbursts. He
the profession and to the public. should refrain from using abusive and intemperate language
 which displays arrogance towards the legal system and his him to return the amount of Php700,000.00 to the Complainant);
colleagues.72 (Underscoring supplied) and

Section 38 of Canon VI on Accountability of the CPRA 5. Admin Case No. 12464 filed on January 31, 2019 by Hernando
provides: Delizo (formerly CBD Case No. 15-4695, where the IBP Board of
Governors recommended [Atty. Gadon's] suspension for six
SECTION 38. Modifying circumstances. — In determining months to one year).73
the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court may, in its
discretion, appreciate the following mitigating and aggravating Likewise, these are the pending cases against him before the
circumstances: IBP:

xxxx 1. Atty. Wilfredo Garrdio Jr. v. Atty. Lorenzo Gadon, filed on May 15,
2018 (for submission of report and recommendation by the
(a) Aggravating Circumstances: Investigating Commissioner);

(1) Finding of previous administrative liability where a 2. CBD Case No. 18-5750, Zena Bernardo, et al. v. Atty. Lorenzo
penalty is imposed, regardless of nature or Gadon, filed on April 20, 2018 (for submission of report and
gravity; x x x. recommendation by the Investigating Commissioner;

The Court likewise notes that numerous administrative cases 3. CBD Case No. 18-5751, Jover Laurio, et al. v. Atty. Lorenzo
have been filed against Atty. Gadon. Before the OBC are the Gadon, filed on April 24, 2018 (for submission by the parties of
following cases: their respective verified position papers); and

1. Admin. Case No. 11276, filed on April 08, 2016 by Sharief Agakan 4. CBD Case No. 19-5977 (Adm Case No. 11275), Algamar Latiph et
for misconduct; al, v. Atty. Lorenzo Gadon, consolidated with CBD Case No. 19-
5978 (Adm Case No. 11276) BNMPD Rep by Agakhan Sharief v.
2. Admin. Case No. 11275 filed on April 08, 2016 by Atty. Algamar Atty. Lorenzo Gadon, received from the Supreme Court on May
Latiph for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 30, 2019 (for mandatory conference).74
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath;
Although these cases have yet to be decided, the volume of
3. Admin. Case No. 11277 filed on April 08, 2016 by Atty. Mamarico administrative complaints filed against Atty. Gadon indubitably
Sansarona, Jr. for misconduct; speaks of his character.

4. Admin. Case No. 12427 filed on December 17, 2018 by Considering all the foregoing, the Court finds that Atty.
Ambulatory Healthcare Institute and Hernando Delizo (formerly Gadon's conduct merits the supreme penalty of disbarment.
CBD Case No. 15-4649, where the IBP Board of Governors
recommended [Atty. Gadon's] suspension for two years, and for
 This Court once again reminds all lawyers that they, of all
classes and professions, are most sacredly bound to uphold the
law.75 The privilege to practice law is bestowed only upon
individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and,
equally important, morally.76 As such, lawyers must at all times
conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients
and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach.77 There is no room in this noble profession for
misogyny and sexism. The Court will never tolerate abuse, in
whatever form, especially when perpetrated by an officer of the
court.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Lorenzo G.

Gadon GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability. He is DISBARRED from the
practice of law. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to
remove the name of Lorenzo G. Gadon from the Roll of
Attorneys.

Furthermore, Lorenzo G. Gadon is found GUILTY of direct

contempt of court. He is FINED the amount of Two Thousand
Pesos (₱2,000.00), to be paid within ten (10) days from receipt of
this Decision.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the

Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record
as a member of the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; the
Office of the Court Administrator, for dissemination to all courts
throughout the country for their information and guidance; and the
Department of Justice.

This Decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.