43.

Zaldivar vs Gonzales

Facts:

Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the
case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The
Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to
temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar.

Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme
Court; that the Supreme Court’s issuance of the TRO is a manifestation that the “rich and influential
persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get
his petition to be given due course”.

The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in
the newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to
criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He
also said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached
him to ask him to “go slow” on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Gonzalez committed gross misconduct as an officer of the court.

Resolution:

While the Court may allow criticism it has In Re: Almacen held: 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. The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the
orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers even those
gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers.

Respondent Gonzalez disclaims intent to attack and denigrate the Court. The subjectivities of the
respondent are irrelevant so far as characterization of his conduct or misconduct is concerned. He will
not, however, be allowed to disclaim the natural and plain import of his words and acts. It is upon the
other hand, not irrelevant to point out that respondent offered no apology in his two (2) explanations
and exhibited no repentance