Prepared by: ESPINA, Bert Junrie B.
In the Matter of Petition to Cite Respondent Atty. Kapunan for Indirect
Contempt [Palad vs Kapunan] A.C. No. 9923, Oct. 9, 2019
FACTS:
Petitioner Atty. Raymund Palad initiated the present petition [1] to cite Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan
for indirect contempt in view of the latter's statement on air pertaining to the former's suspension
from the practice of law, thus, violating the confidentiality rule under Section 18, Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court. Atty. Palad was Katrina Halili’s lawyer.
The basis for the petition was Atty. Patajo-Kapunan's public statement regarding Atty. Palad's
suspension from the practice of law, which allegedly violated the confidentiality rule under Section
18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
On the one hand, Atty. Patajo-Kapunan countered that During the radio interview, she did not
maliciously reveal that Atty. Palad had been suspended from the practice of law. In fact, she never
mentioned his name because she did not want the listeners to identify him. Also, she did not know
that petitioner's suspension was still under consideration by the Court.
In essence, Atty. Palad argued that Atty. Patajo-Kapunan should be cited for indirect contempt for
violating Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, viz:
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.
ISSUE: Should Atty. Patajo-Kapunan be held liable for indirect contempt of court for violating
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court?
RULING: The Supreme Court denied the petition
As a general rule, disciplinary proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and
the final decision of this Court. However, in this case, the disciplinary proceeding against petitioner
became a matter of public concern considering that it arose from his representation of his client
on the issue of video voyeurism on the internet. The interest of the public is not in himself but
primarily in his involvement and participation as counsel of Halili in the scandal. Indeed, the
disciplinary proceeding against petitioner related to his supposed conduct and statements made
before the media in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility involving the controversy.
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. The legitimate
media has a right to publish such fact under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.
Respondents merely reported on the alleged penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a
year against petitioner, and the supposed grounds relied upon. It appeared that the respondents, as
entertainment writers, merely acted on information they received from their source about the
petitioner who used to appear before the media in representing his actress client. Also, 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.
The confidentiality rule is intended, in part, to prevent the use of disbarment proceedings as a tool
to damage a lawyer's reputation in the public sphere. Thus, the general rule is that publicly
disclosing disbarment proceedings may be punished with contempt.
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom of the press. If
there is a legitimate public interest, media is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate
news report of a disbarment complaint. In the absence of a legitimate public interest in a
disbarment complaint, members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings during its pendency. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers must still remain
private and confidential until their final determination. Only the final order of this Court shall be
published like its decisions in other cases.
