Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos.

79690-707 October7,1988]
FACTS:
Petitioner filed Resolution including Motion to Cite in Contempt Special Prosecu
tor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez. Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the f
iling of the information against petitioner in criminal case before the Sandigan
bayan, and (2) issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in
relation to the proceedings in where respondent is claiming that he is acting a
s Tanodbayan-Ombudsman. A Resolution from the Supreme Court required respondent
to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to adm
inistrative sanctions for making certain public statements. Portion of the publi
shed article from Philippine Daily Globe in his interview:
What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that whi
le rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, it
is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due cours
e.
Respondent has not denied making the above statements; indeed, he acknowledges t
hat the newspaper reports of the statements attributed to him are substantially
correct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Gonzales is entitled to invoke freedom of speech
as a defense.
HELD:
NO. Respondent indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
RATIO:
The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of courti
nfacie curiaeand of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the
Bar.(Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
[F]reedom 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.