G.R. No. 206691, October 03, 2016 G.R. No. 206691, October 03, 2016 ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD
ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD,, Petitioner Petitioner ,, v.v. LOLIT SOLIS, SALVE V. ASIS, AL G. PEDRO!ELOLIT SOLIS, SALVE V. ASIS, AL G. PEDRO!E AND RIARDO ". LO,
AND RIARDO ". LO, RespondentsRespondents.. Before this Court is a petition to cite respondents Lolit Solis (
Before this Court is a petition to cite respondents Lolit Solis ( SolisSolis), Salve V. Asis (), Salve V. Asis ( Asis Asis), AI G.), AI G. Pedroche (
Pedroche (PedrochePedroche), and Ricardo . Lo (), and Ricardo . Lo (LaLa) for indirect conte!pt for pu"lishin# articles on the) for indirect conte!pt for pu"lishin# articles on the petitioner Att$. Ra$!und P. Palad%s suspension, &hich &as su"'ect of a pendin# ad!inistrative petitioner Att$. Ra$!und P. Palad%s suspension, &hich &as su"'ect of a pendin# ad!inistrative case.
case.
he facts follo&. he facts follo&.
n *ece!"er +, -+-, the Board of Governors of the Inte#rated Bar of the Philippines ( n *ece!"er +, -+-, the Board of Governors of the Inte#rated Bar of the Philippines ( IBP IBP )) issued a Resolution in CB* Case /o. 01-02, reco!!endin# the penalt$ of suspension of issued a Resolution in CB* Case /o. 01-02, reco!!endin# the penalt$ of suspension of herein pet
herein petitioner Att$. Ra$!und P. Palad.itioner Att$. Ra$!und P. Palad.++ Pal ad received a cop$ of the Resolution on 3arch 2, Pal ad received a cop$ of the Resolution on 3arch 2,
-+4, and filed his 3otion for Reconsideration. -+4, and filed his 3otion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner averred that around 564 in the !ornin# on April -4, -+4, he received a te7t Petitioner averred that around 564 in the !ornin# on April -4, -+4, he received a te7t !essa#e fro! his fello& la&$er friends infor!in# hi! that the latter read in an article in
!essa#e fro! his fello& la&$er friends infor!in# hi! that the latter read in an article in FilipinoFilipino Star Ngayon
Star Ngayon that petitioner &as alread$ suspended fro! the practice of la& for one (+) $ear.that petitioner &as alread$ suspended fro! the practice of la& for one (+) $ear. -
-he article &as &ritten "$ respondent Solis in her colu!n 8a9e it, a9e it8, &hich &as also he article &as &ritten "$ respondent Solis in her colu!n 8a9e it, a9e it8, &hich &as also pu"lished on the ta"loid%s &e"site. An e7cerpt of the article reads6
pu"lished on the ta"loid%s &e"site. An e7cerpt of the article reads6 chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$
chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$
*ahil sa pa#la"a# sa code of professional responsi"ilit$ *ahil sa pa#la"a# sa code of professional responsi"ilit$ ABGA*
ABGA* /I :A /I :ARI/A RI/A ;ALILI S<;ALILI S<SP=/** SP=/** /G ISA/G /G ISA/G AA/>/>
Sisi9apin n# Startal9 staff na 9unin an# pani# ni Att$. ?Ra$!und@ Palad, an# le#al counsel ni Sisi9apin n# Startal9 staff na 9unin an# pani# ni Att$. ?Ra$!und@ Palad, an# le#al counsel ni :atrina ;alili sa 9aso na isasa!pa nito la"an 9a$ ;a$den :ho, r.
:atrina ;alili sa 9aso na isasa!pa nito la"an 9a$ ;a$den :ho, r.
3a$ "alita 9asi na na9aratin# sa Startal9 na suspendido si Att$. Palad sa practice of la& dahil 3a$ "alita 9asi na na9aratin# sa Startal9 na suspendido si Att$. Palad sa practice of la& dahil lu!a"a# si$a sa code of professional responsi"ilit$ n# !#a la&$er. *iu!ano, isan# taon an# lu!a"a# si$a sa code of professional responsi"ilit$ n# !#a la&$er. *iu!ano, isan# taon an# suspension ni Att$. Palad dahil sa !#a salita na "inita&an ni$a la"an sa Belo 3edical Clinic. suspension ni Att$. Palad dahil sa !#a salita na "inita&an ni$a la"an sa Belo 3edical Clinic. ;indi ra& na#1verif$ si Att$. Palad tun#9ol sa 9aso na &alan# 9inala!an an# 9lini9a ni *r. Vic9i ;indi ra& na#1verif$ si Att$. Palad tun#9ol sa 9aso na &alan# 9inala!an an# 9lini9a ni *r. Vic9i Belo.
Belo.
Su9i n# Startal9 si Att$. Palad, ato na noon# 9ainitan n# 9aso nina :atrina at ;a$den. Su9i n# Startal9 si Att$. Palad, ato na noon# 9ainitan n# 9aso nina :atrina at ;a$den. :arapatan ni$a na !a#salita at !a#pali&ana# para !a"i#$an#1lina& an# is$u na :arapatan ni$a na !a#salita at !a#pali&ana# para !a"i#$an#1lina& an# is$u na 9inasasan#9utan ni$a n#a$on.
9inasasan#9utan ni$a n#a$on. Apat na
Apat na taon na taon na an# na9aan# na9alilipas !ula lilipas !ula nan# punan# pu!uto9 an!uto9 an# se7 vide# se7 video scandao scandal nina :al nina :atrina attrina at ;a$den.
;a$den. An# a9al
An# a9ala n# Iahaa n# Iahat a$ tapt a$ tapos na anos na an# is$u dah# is$u dahil na#la"ail na#la"as na n# s na n# dcsis$on adcsis$on an# 9orte n# 9orte pero hindpero hindi pai pa pala dahil sa "a#on# is$u na na#sasan#9ot sa pan#alan ni Att$. ?Ra$!und@ Palad.
pala dahil sa "a#on# is$u na na#sasan#9ot sa pan#alan ni Att$. ?Ra$!und@ Palad. 7777
7777
Pipilitin din n# Startal9 staff na hin#in an# pani# nina :atrina at Pipilitin din n# Startal9 staff na hin#in an# pani# nina :atrina at ;a$den tun#9ol sa alle#ed suspension ni Att$. Palad. 7777 ;a$den tun#9ol sa alle#ed suspension ni Att$. Palad. 7777
:un# totoo !an na suspended si Att$. Palad, pareho na lan# sila n# 9apalaran ni ;a$den na :un# totoo !an na suspended si Att$. Palad, pareho na lan# sila n# 9apalaran ni ;a$den na "ina&ian na!an n# !edical license n# Professional Re#ulation Co!!ission (PRC).
"ina&ian na!an n# !edical license n# Professional Re#ulation Co!!ission (PRC). 7 7 76
7 7 7644
Petitioner also alle#ed that respondent Lo "roached the sa!e topic in his colu!n unfare in Petitioner also alle#ed that respondent Lo "roached the sa!e topic in his colu!n unfare in he Philippine Star on April-4, -+4, thus6
chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$ #$%t&' ()*
• Could it "e true that the la&$er Ra$!und Palad, the cot!sel of :atrina ;alili (in the case
she filed a#ainst ;a$den :ho &ho &as cleared "$ the court), &as suspended fro! the practice of la& "ecause of several actions that &ere dee!ed inconsistent &ith the la&$ers% code of professional responsi"ilit$, includin# !a9in# irresponsi"le pu"lic state!ents a#ainst the Belo 3edical Clinic &ithout verif$in# his reports and !a9in# pu"lic state!ents re#ardin# a pendin# case of &hich unfare sources said that la&$er Palad has filed a !otion for reconsideration &hich is a&aitin# resolution.
Petitioner avo&ed that respondents clearl$ violated the confidentialit$ rule in proceedin#s a#ainst attorne$s as provided "$ Rule +401B of the Rules of Court &hen the$ disclosed the pendin# ad!inistrative case to the pu"lic and are, li9e&ise, lia"le for indirect conte!pt since the$ !ade co!!ents, opinions and conclusions as to the findin#s of the IBP Board of
Governors re#ardin# the ad!inistrative case a#ainst hi!.
In their oint Co!!ent, respondent Solis alle#ed that she has "een an entertain!ent 'ournalist for fort$ () $ears &ho &rites a"out an$thin# that pertains to "oth local and international
entertain!ent industr$, includin#, a!on# others, ne&s a"out local and international cele"rities and personalities &ho are associated &ith the!. n the other hand, respondent Asis contended that she has "een the editor of Pilipino Star Ngayon's Sho&"i section for four $ears. As editor, she edits the articles su"!itted to the entertain!ent section "$ the entertain!ent colu!nists "efore the$ are pu"lished, "ut she has no control or discretion over the topics that the
colu!nists &rite.
or his part, respondent Pedroche narrated that as the =ditor1in1Chief, he is in char#e of the overall preparation of the ne&spaper, and deter!ines &hich ne&s to "e pu"lished "$ the order of their national si#nificance. ;o&ever, the editors of other se#!ents, such as sho&"i, have autono!$ to decide &hich article to use. 3ean&hile, respondent Lo averred that he has "een an entertain!ent 'ournalist for al!ost $ears and that he &rites the colu!n Funfare in the entertain!ent section of the Philippine Star.
Solis and Lo further clai!ed that so!eti!e in April -+4, the$ received infor!ation fro! a relia"le source that petitioner &as reportedl$ suspended fro! the practice of la& for supposed violation of the code of ethics. he$ ar#ued that the ad!inistrative case a#ainst petitioner is a !atter of pu"lic interest "ecause he "eca!e a pu"lic fi#ure "$ #ainin# national reco#nition and notoriet$ as the ardent counsel of :atrina ;alili, &hose scandal &ith ;a$den :ho !ade
headlines a fe& $ears a#o. Petitioner inevita"l$ "eca!e an overni#ht cele"rit$ la&$er due to his e7tensive !edia e7posure in defendin# his client. he issue &ith &hich petitioner &as
associated as ;alili%s la&$er #enerated so !uch pu"licit$, captured the entire nation%s attention, and even led to a Senate investi#ation. As such, the$ alle#ed that their &ritin#s a"out
petitioner%s suspension arc considered ualified privile#ed co!!unication, &hich is protected under the constitutional #uarantee of freedo! of the press.
3ean&hile, the ffice of the Cit$ Prosecutor of Valenuela Cit$, in a Resolution D
dated une -2, -+4, dis!issed the li"el case filed "$ petitioner a#ainst Solis for lac9 of pro"a"le cause. he ele!ent of !alice is &antin# #iven that there &ere no &ild i!putations, distortions or defa!ator$ co!!ents calculated to da!a#e petitioner%s reputation &hen Solis reported in her colu!n a"out the alle#ed suspension.5
Li9e&ise, the case a#ainst Solis, Asis and Pedroche &as also
dis!issed. It held that it is plainl$ evident fro! a readin# of the article that it is "ut a !ere inuir$ of the alle#ed suspension.E
he case a#ainst Lo &as also dis!issed "ecause all fair
co!!entaries a"out the status and condition of the petitioner, for havin# acuired the stature of pu"lic fi#ure, "eco!e ualified privile#ed co!!unication.2
chanro"lesla& In the present petition, petitioner raises the follo&in# issues6
chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$
R=SP/*=/S VILA=* R<L= +401B ;= R<L=S C<R F;IC; *=CLAR=S ;A PRC==*I/GS AGAI/S AR/= S;ALL B= PRIVA= A/* C/I*=/IAL.
R=SP/*=/?S@ VILA=* ;= *=CISI/ ;= S<PR=3= C<R I/ ;= CAS= A. SIGRI* R</ VS. R==*3 </* R ILIPI/ <R/ALISS (), = AL.
(sic)
Basicall$, the issue to "e resolved "$ this Court is &hether respondents violated the confidentialit$ rule in proceedin#s a#ainst la&$ers, &arrantin# a findin# of #uilt for indirect conte!pt of court.
Before all else, conte!pt of court has "een defined as a &illful disre#ard or diso"edience of a pu"lic authorit$. Conte!pt, in its "road sense, is a disre#ard of, or diso"edience to, the rules or orders of a le#islative or 'udicial "od$ or an interruption of its proceedin#s "$ disorderl$ "ehavior or insolent lan#ua#e in its presence or so near thereto as to distur" its proceedin#s or to i!pair the respect due to such a "od$. In its restricted and !ore usual sense, conte!pt co!prehends a despisin# of the authorit$, 'ustice, or di#nit$ of a court. 0
chanro"lesla&
Conte!pt of court is of t&o (-) 9inds, na!el$6 direct conte!pt and indirect conte!pt. *irect conte!pt is co!!itted &hen a person is #uilt$ of !is"ehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to o"struct or interrupt the proceedin#s "efore the sa!e, includin# disrespect to&ard the court, offensive personalities to&ard others, or refusal to "e s&orn or to ans&er as a
&itness, or to su"scri"e an affidavit or deposition &hen la&full$ reuired to do so. n the other hand, indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that &hich is co!!itted out of the presence of the court, &hich includes an$ i!proper conduct tendin#, directl$ or indirectl$, to i!pede,
o"struct, or de#rade the ad!inistration of 'ustice.+
chanro"lesla&
Fe note that the petitioner filed a conte!pt char#e in the nature of a cri!inal conte!pt. A cri!inal conte!pt is conduct that is directed a#ainst the di#nit$ and authorit$ of the court or a 'ud#e actin# 'udiciall$H it is an act o"structin# the ad!inistration of 'ustice &hich tends to "rin#
the court into disrepute or disrespect. Bein# directed a#ainst the di#nit$ and authorit$ of the court, cri!inal conte!pt is an offense a#ainst or#anied societ$ and, in addition, is also held to "e an offense a#ainst pu"lic 'ustice &hich raises an issue "et&een the pu"lic and the accused, and the proceedin#s to punish it are punitive. ++
chanro"lesla&
Records of this case revealed that the petitioner%s alle#ed penalt$ of suspension fro! the practice of la& for one $ear had "een pu"lished "$ respondents.
Section +2, Rule +401B of the Rules of Court provides6 chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$
Section +2. onfidentiality . Proceedin#s a#ainst attorne$s shall "e private and confidential. ;o&ever, the final order of the Supre!e Court shall "e pu"lished li9e its decisions in other cases.
he confidential nature of the proceedin#s has a three1fold purpose, to &it6 (i) to ena"le the court and the investi#ator to !a9e the investi#ation free fro! an$ e7traneous influence or interferenceH (ii) to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorne$s fro! "aseless char#es of dis#runtled, vindictive and irresponsi"le persons or clients "$ prohi"itin# the
pu"lication of such char#es pendin# their resolutionH and (iii) to deter the press fro! pu"lishin# the char#es or proceedin#s "ased thereon.+-chanro"lesla&
Fe held that !alicious and unauthoried pu"lication or ver"ati! reproduction of ad!inistrative co!plaints a#ainst la&$ers in ne&spapers "$ editors andor reporters !a$ "e actiona"le. Such pre!ature pu"lication constitutes a conte!pt of court, punisha"le "$ either a fine or
i!prison!ent or "oth at the discretion of the Court. +4
chanro"lesla&
Conte!pt is a9in to a case of li"el for "oth constitute li!itations upon freedo! of the press or freedo! of e7pression #uaranteed "$ our Constitution. Fhat is considered a privile#e in one !a$ li9e&ise "e considered in the other.+
As earl$ as +0+2, this Court, in the case of !nited States v. a"ete, +D
ruled that pu"lications &hich are privile#ed for reasons of pu"lic polic$ are protected "$ the constitutional #uarant$ of freedo! of speech. +5 herefore, the principle of
It is settled that Section +2, Rule +401B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedo! of the press. As lon# as there is a le#iti!ate pu"lic interest, the !edia is not prohi"ited fro! !a9in# a fair, true, and accurate ne&s report of a dis"ar!ent co!plaint. ;o&ever, in the a"sence of a le#iti!ate pu"lic interest in a dis"ar!ent co!plaint, !e!"ers of the !edia !ust preserve the confidentialit$ of dis"ar!ent proceedin#s durin# its pendenc$.+Echanro"lesla&
Petitioner alle#ed that unli9e in the Fortun+2
case, the !edia !erel$ reported the filin# of the dis"ar!ent co!plaint and &as done &ithout an$ co!!ent, in #ood faith and &ithout !alice. Petitioner alle#ed that he is an ordinar$ private practicin# la&$er &ho handled the ;a$den :ho1 :atrina ;alili se7 scandal &hich is a private case, not i!"ued &ith le#iti!ate pu"lic interest. Fe are not persuaded. his Court has al&a$s #rappled &ith the !eanin# of the ter! 8pu"lic intcrest.8+0 Pu"lic interest is so!ethin# in &hich the pu"lic, the co!!unit$ at lar#e, has so!e
pecuniar$ interest, or so!e interest "$ &hich their le#al ri#hts or lia"ilities arc affectedH it does not !ean an$thin# so narro& as !ere curiosit$, or as the interests of the particular localities, &hich !a$ "e affected "$ the !atters in uestion.-
As o"served in Legaspi v. ivil Service ommission6-+
chanro"lesla&
In deter!inin# &hether or not a particular infor!ation is of pu"lic concern there is no ri#id test &hich can "e applied. 8P(b+c co-cer-8 li9e 8pu"lic interest8 is a ter! that eludes e7act
definition. ot$ ter/' e/br%ce % bro% ')ectr(/ o '(bect' $c$ t$e )(b+c /%4 %-t to 5-o, et$er bec%('e t$e'e rect+4 %ect t$er +e', or '/)+4 bec%('e '(c$ /%tter' -%t(r%++4 %ro('e t$e -tere't o %- or-%r4 ct7e- . In the final anal$sis, it is for the courts to deter!ine in a case "$ case "asis &hether the !atter at issue is of interest or i!portance, as it relates to or affects the pu"lic.
--In the case at "ar, the hi#hl$1pu"licied controvers$ involvin# petitioner%s client, &ho is a pu"lic fi#ure, roused the pu"lic%s attention, as the foota#e &as !ade availa"le to an$one &ho has access to internet. he case involved the issue on photo or video vo$euris! -4
on the internet &hich is considered a su"'ect of pu"lic interest. he pu"lic concern &as focused on the event, the conduct of the personalities, and the content, effect and si#nificance of the conduct, and not on the !ere personalities. hus, petitioner represents a !atter of pu"lic interest.
It is noted that the then Senator 3a. Ana Consuelo 8a!"$8 3adri#al stressed at the start of the Senate inuir$ in -0 that the proceedin# &as "ein# conducted not onl$ for ;alili "ut for all &o!en &ho !i#ht find the!selves "ein# videotaped durin# se7ual intercourse and the foota#e pu"licied 1 all &ithout their consent.-
Repu"lic Act /o. 000D, other&ise 9no&n as Anti#Photo and $ideo $oyeurism Act of %&&( &as enacted into a la& to stop vo$euris! usin# the
internet.-D
crala&redchanro"lesla&
A person, even if he &as not a pu"lic official or at least a pu"lic fi#ure, could validl$ "e the su"'ect of a pu"lic co!!ent as lon# as he &as involved in a pu"lic issue. -5 Petitioner has
"eco!e a pu"lic fi#ure "ecause he is representin# a pu"lic concern. Fe e7plained it, thus6 chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$
But even assu!in# 7 7 7 that ?the person@ &ould not ualif$ as a pu"lic fi#ure, it does not necessaril$ follo& that he could not validl$ "e the su"'ect of a pu"lic co!!ent even if he &as not a pu"lic official or at least a pu"lic fi#ure, for he could "e, as lon# as he &as involved in a pu"lic issue. I % /%tter ' % '(b.ect o )(b+c or 8e-er%+ -tere't, t c%--ot '(e-+4 beco/e +e'' 'o /ere+4 bec%('e % )r%te -(%+ ' -o+e or bec%('e - 'o/e 'e-'e t$e -(%+ -ot o+(-t%r+4 c$oo'e to beco/e -o+e. T$e )(b+c&' )r/%r4 -tere't ' - t$e ee-t t$e )(b+c oc(' ' o- t$e co-(ct o t$e )%rtc)%-t %- t$e
co-te-t, eect %- '8-c%-ce o t$e co-(ct, -ot t$e )%rtc)%-t&' )ror %-o-4/t4 or -otoret4.-E
As a #eneral rule, disciplinar$ proceedin#s are confidential in nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this Court. ;o&ever, in this case, the disciplinar$ proceedin# a#ainst petitioner "eca!e a !atter of pu"lic concern considerin# that it arose fro! his representation of his client on the issue of video vo$euris! on the internet. he interest of the pu"lic is not in hi!self "ut pri!aril$ in his involve!ent and participation as counsel of ;alili in the scandal. Indeed, the disciplinar$ proceedin# a#ainst petitioner related to his supposed conduct and state!ents !ade "efore the !edia in violation of the Code of Professional Responsi"ilit$
involvin# the controvers$.
Since petitioner has "eco!e a pu"lic fi#ure for "ein# involved in a pu"lic issue, and "ecause the event itself that led to the filin# of the disciplinar$ case a#ainst petitioner is a !atter of pu"lic interest, the !edia has the ri#ht to report the disciplinar$ case as le#iti!ate ne&s. he
le#iti!ate !edia has a ri#ht to pu"lish such fact under the constitutional #uarantee of freedo! of the press. Respondents !erel$ reported on the alle#ed penalt$ of suspension fro! the
practice of la& for a $ear a#ainst petitioner, and the supposed #rounds relied upon. It appeared that the respondents, as entertain!ent &riters, !erel$ acted on infor!ation the$ received fro! their source a"out the petitioner &ho used to appear "efore the !edia in representin# his actress client. Also, there &as no evidence that the respondents pu"lished the articles to influence this Court on its action on the disciplinar$ case or deli"eratel$ destro$ petitioner%s reputation. hus, the$ did not violate the confidentialit$ rule in disciplinar$ proceedin#s a#ainst la&$ers.
Petitioner alle#ed that respondents !ade co!!ents, opinions and conclusions as to the
findin#s of the IBP Board of Governors. Petitioner also alle#ed that the articles are pure hearsa$ since the$ &ere not supposed to have copies of the Resolution. n the other hand, respondents alle#ed that as entertain!ent 'ournalists, the$ received infor!ation fro! their respective sources a"out various incidents, events, and personalities. he$ alle#ed that the$ too9 the infor!ation a"out the petitioner as the truth, and reported the sa!e as the$ &ere rela$ed to.
Fhile su"stantiation of the facts supplied is an i!portant reportin# standard, still, a reporter !a$ rel$ on infor!ation #iven "$ a lone source althou#h it reflects onl$ one side of the stor$ provided the reporter does not entertain a 8hi#h de#ree of a&areness of its pro"a"le
falsit$.8-2
chanro"lesla&
urther!ore, to "e considered !alicious, the li"elous state!ent !ust "e sho&n to have "een &ritten or pu"lished &ith the 9no&led#e that the$ are false or in rec9less disre#ard of &hether the$ are false or not. 8Rec9less disre#ard of &hat is false or not8 !eans that the author or pu"lisher entertains serious dou"t as to the truth of the pu"lication, or that he possesses a hi#h de#ree of a&areness of their pro"a"le falsit$.-0
chanro"lesla&
Aside fro! his "are alle#ation, petitioner presented no proof that respondents have their o&n copies of the Resolution, or that the$ !ade their o&n co!!ents, opinions and conclusions. Petitioner also failed to prove that the pu"lication of the articles is !alicious. Li9e&ise, there &as no evidence that respondents entertained a&areness of the pro"a"le falsit$ of their infor!ation. #!ERE"ORE, the instant petition filed "$ petitioner Att$. Ra$!und P. Palad to cite respondents Lolit Solis, Salve V. Asis, Al G. Pedroche, and Ricardo . Lo for indirect conte!pt is here"$ DISMISSED.