ZALDIVAR VS GONZALES

FACTS:

Petitioner Zaldivar, then governor of Antique was one of several defendants in Criminal Cases for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act pending before the Sandiganbayan. The Office
of the Tanodbayan conducted the preliminary investigation and filed the criminal informations in
those cases.

Zaldivar filed a case against both the Sandiganbayan and Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez who was acting
as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman. Zaldivar alleged that under the 1987 Constitution, Gonzales was no
longer vested with power and authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases
for graft and corruption against public officials and employees.

The Court then issued a TRO ordering respondents Gonzalez and Sandiganbayan to cease and
desist in further investigating and arrest of the petitioner.

However, Gonzales continued filing a case against Zaldivar and also made public statements to the
media which were offensive to and disrespectful of the Court. In an article that appeared on
“Philippine Daily Globe:” stating that Tanod Scores SC for Quashing Graft Case, Gonzales claimed
that the Supreme Court is only favoring the rich and the influential persons. He also said, that while
the President had been prodding him to prosecute graft cases, even if they involve the high and
mighty, the SC had been restraining him to do his official duties. Thus, this prompted Zaldivar to file
a motion for contempt to Gonzales.

SC ordered Gonzales to explain himself. Gonzalez’ defense is that he was merely exercising his
constitutional right of free speech. He also invokes the related doctrines of qualified privileged
communications and fair criticism in the public interest.

ISSUE: Whether or Not Gonzales is guilty of contempt of court.

HELD: Yes, Gonzales is guilty of contempt. He seems unaware that freedom of speech and of
expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on
occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public
interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly
functioning of the administration of justice.

Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who
owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to this Court as the embodiment and the
repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of the
respondent "to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court' and "not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.

The Court is compelled to hold that the statements made by Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt
and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. Respondent’s statements,
especially the charge that the Court deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust decision,
necessarily implying that the justices of the Court betrayed their oath of office, constitute the grossest
kind of disrespect for the Court. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme
Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the country.

As held in re: Almacen, the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bonafide and shall
not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court suspended Gonzales indefinitely and until further orders from the Court.