by Redge Maliksi
ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD v. LOLIT SOLIS, GR No. 206691, 2016-10-03 (/juris/view/cf401?
user=gaDFqd0R3MHVZb0djUG1pYmZ3U3BxdE5IVjR1MjFJTWF5Rm5FQTAyMitZVT0=)
Facts:
On December 14, 2012, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued a
Resolution in CBD Case No. 09-2498, recommending the penalty of suspension of herein petitioner Atty.
Raymund P. Palad... he received a text message from his fellow lawyer friends informing him that the latter
read in an article in Filipino Star Ngayon that petitioner was already suspended from the practice of law for
one (1) year.[2] The article was written by respondent Solis in her column "Take it, Take it", which was also
published on the tabloid's website. An excerpt of the article reads:
Petitioner also alleged that respondent Lo broached the same topic in his column Funfare in The Philippine
Star on April23, 2013
Petitioner avowed that respondents clearly violated the confidentiality rule in proceedings against attorneys
as provided by Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court when they disclosed the pending administrative case to the
public and are, likewise, liable for indirect contempt since they made comments, opinions and conclusions as
to the findings of the IBP Board of Governors regarding the administrative case against him.
respondent Solis alleged that she has been an entertainment journalist for forty (40) years who writes about
anything that pertains to both local and international entertainment industry, including, among others, news
about local and international celebrities and personalities who are associated with them. On the other hand,
respondent Asis contended that she has been the editor of Pilipino Star Ngayon's Showbiz section for four
years. As editor, she edits the articles submitted to the entertainment section by the entertainment
columnists before they are published, but she has no control or discretion over the topics that the columnists
write.
Solis and Lo further claimed that sometime in April 2013, they received information from a reliable source
that petitioner was reportedly suspended from the practice of law for supposed violation of the code of
ethics. They argued that the administrative case against petitioner is a matter of public interest because he
became a public figure by gaining national recognition and notoriety as the ardent counsel of Katrina Halili,
whose scandal with Hayden Kho made headlines a few years ago.
As such, they alleged that their writings about petitioner's suspension arc considered qualified privileged
communication, which is protected under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.
Meanwhile, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, in a Resolution[5] dated June 28, 2013,
dismissed the libel case filed by petitioner against Solis for lack of probable cause. The element of malice is
wanting given that there were no wild imputations, distortions or defamatory comments calculated to
damage petitioner's reputation when Solis reported in her column about the alleged suspension.[6] Likewise,
the case against Solis, Asis and Pedroche was also dismissed. It held that it is plainly evident from a reading of
the article that it is but a mere inquiry of the alleged suspension.[7] The case against Lo was also dismissed
because all fair commentaries about the status and condition of the petitioner, for having acquired the stature
of public figure, become qualified privileged communication.[8]
Before all else, contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority.
Contempt, in its broad sense, is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial
body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so
near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In its restricted and
more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court.[9]
Contempt of court is of two (2) kinds, namely: direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is
committed when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or
interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities
toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition
when lawfully required to do so. On the other hand, indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which
is committed out of the presence of the court, which includes any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.[10]
We note that the petitioner filed a contempt charge in the nature of a criminal contempt. A criminal contempt
is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act
obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. Being
directed against the dignity and authority of the court, criminal contempt is an offense against organized
society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense against public justice which raises an issue between the
public and the accused, and the proceedings to punish it are punitive.
Records of this case revealed that the petitioner's alleged penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
one year had been published by respondents.Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:Section
18. Confidentiality. Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order
of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
e held that malicious and unauthorized publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints
against lawyers in newspapers by editors and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature publication
constitutes a contempt of court, punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the
Court.
Contempt is akin to a case of libel for both constitute limitations upon freedom of the press or freedom of
expression guaranteed by our Constitution. What is considered a privilege in one may likewise be considered
in the other.[14]
Issues:
Before this Court is a petition to cite respondents Lolit Solis (Solis), Salve V. Asis (Asis), AI G. Pedroche
(Pedroche), and Ricardo F. Lo (La) for indirect contempt for publishing articles on the petitioner Atty.
Raymund P. Palad's suspension, which was subject of a pending administrative case.
RESPONDENTS VIOLATED RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF COURT WHICH DECLARES THAT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTORNEY SHALL BE PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.RESPONDENT[S]
VIOLATED THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ATTY. SIGFRID FORTUN VS.
FREEDOM FUND FOR FILIPINO JOURNALISTS (FFFJ), ET AL. (sic)
Basically, the issue to be resolved by this Court is whether respondents violated the confidentiality rule in
proceedings against lawyers, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect contempt of court.
Ruling:
Principles:
Before this Court is a petition to cite respondents Lolit Solis (Solis), Salve V. Asis (Asis), AI G. Pedroche
(Pedroche), and Ricardo F. Lo (La) for indirect contempt for publishing articles on the petitioner Atty.
Raymund P. Palad's suspension, which was subject of a pending administrative case.
Public interest is something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities arc affected; it does not mean anything so narrow as mere
curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.[20]
As observed in Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission:[21]
A person, even if he was not a public official or at least a public figure, could validly be the subject of a public
comment as long as he was involved in a public issue.[
Since petitioner has become a public figure for being involved in a public issue, and because the event itself
that led to the filing of the disciplinary case against petitioner is a matter of public interest, the media has the
right to report the disciplinary case as legitimate news.
lso, there was no evidence that the respondents published the articles to influence this Court on its action on
the disciplinary case or deliberately destroy petitioner's reputation. Thus, they did not violate the
confidentiality rule in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
Furthermore, to be considered malicious, the libelous statement must be shown to have been written or
published with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not.
"Reckless disregard of what is false or not" means that the author or publisher entertains serious doubt as to
the truth of the publication, or that he possesses a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.
Aside from his bare allegation, petitioner presented no proof that respondents have their own copies of the
Resolution, or that they made their own comments, opinions and conclusions. Petitioner also failed to prove
that the publication of the articles is malicious. Likewise, there was no evidence that respondents entertained
awareness of the probable falsity of their information.WHEREFORE, the instant petition filed by petitioner
Atty. Raymund P. Palad to cite respondents Lolit Solis, Salve V. Asis, Al G. Pedroche, and Ricardo F. Lo for
indirect contempt is hereby DISMISSED.
