ZALDIVAR VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN (166 SCRA 316 10/071988)

FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique and 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. Respondent Gonzalez has also asserted that the Court was preventing him
from prosecuting "rich and powerful persons," that the Court was in effect discrimination between the rich and
powerful on the one hand and the poor and defenseless upon the other, and allowing "rich and powerful" accused
persons to go "scot-free" while presumably allowing or affirming the conviction of poor and small offenders.

Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.

HELD: YES. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of
the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. According to Canon 11: A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. It is one of the
bounded duties of an attorney to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officer
(Section 20 [b], Rule 138 of the Rules of Court). His statements necessarily imply that the justices of the
Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court
and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the country. Gonzalez is entitled to the
constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is 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. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering 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 the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial
power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the
Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private
practicing lawyer.

Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In the case at bar,
his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme Court approached him, are of
no relation to the Zaldivar case.

The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and
of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and
until further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.