Part I.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
Canon 1. A Lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, Obey the Laws of the Land and
Promote Respect for Law of and Legal Processes.
What if a lawyer was convicted of a crime?
In the case of Atty. Diosdado Q. Gutierrez (Adm. Case No. L-363, July 31, 1962)
he was disbarred as member of the Philippine Bar because he was convicted of the
murder of one Filemon Samaco, former municipal mayor of Calapan, Mindoro.
Gutierrez together with his co-conspirators was sentence to the penalty of death on
October 5, 1945 but upon review by the Court the judgment reduced to reclusion
perpetua. Luckily, after serving a portion of the sentence respondent was granted a
conditional pardon by then President Carlos P. Garcia on August 19, 1958.
The widow of Filemon Samaco filed a verified complaint before the Supreme
court praying that respondent be removed from the roll of lawyers pursuant to Rule
127, section 5. Under section 5 of Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of his conviction
of a crime in solving moral turpitude. Murder is such a crime. The term "moral
turpitude" includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals.
Justice Makalintal also mentioned the case of Scott vs. State, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 343
(1894) the Court of Appeal of Texas held that a proceeding to disbar Scott, which had
been brought solely on the basis of Scott's conviction of a felony, was barred by Scott's
receipt of a pardon from the governor. “Of all the classes and professions, the lawyer is
most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all
men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them under foot and
to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recurrency to his position and office and sets
a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.
Lastly, the practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up
to certain rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate
to the bar the Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but
require satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These standards are neither
dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must continue to adhere to
them or else incur the risk of suspension or removal.
In another landmark case of Enrique Zaldivar, petitioner vs. The Honorable
Sandiganbayan and Justice Raul M. Gonzales, claiming to and acting as Tanodbayan-
Ombudsman under the 1987 (G.R. No. 79690-707 and 80578, October 7, 1988)
 Criminal cases filed against the petitioner by the private and special prosecutor
(formerly known as Tanodbayan) Justice Raul M. Gonzalez and the Sandiganbayan of
the cases Graft and Corruption. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered to
CEASE and DESIST from further acting in TBP Case No. 87-01304 entitled,
"Commission on Audit vs. Gov. Enrique Zaldivar, et al." and particularly, from filing
the criminal information consequent thereof and from conducting preliminary
investigation therein "ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER effective
immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, ordering respondents
Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez and Sandiganbayan to CEASE and DESIST from further acting
in Criminal Case No. 12570, entitled, "People of the Philippines vs. Enrique M. Zaldivar, et
al." and from enforcing the order of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan in said case.

Dismayed with the Court’s decision favoring petitioner Zaldivar, Justice

Gonzalez allegedly release contemptuous statements to the media which appeared in
the 30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe:" (Show newspaper
clippings)

On 9 February 1988, petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a Motion to Cite in
Contempt 11 directed at respondent Gonzalez. The Motion cited as bases the acts of
respondent Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the filing of the information against
petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570 before the Sandiganbayan; and (2) issuing certain
allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R.
No. 80578.

Respondent Gonzalez disclaims an 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. 55 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

ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech
towards the Court?
HELD: No. The Court begins by referring to the authority to discipline officers of the
court and members of the Bar. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the
Court's constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which
includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Moreover, the Supreme
Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice
the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all other persons
connected in any manner with a case before the Court.

The instant proceeding is not addressed to the fact that respondent has criticized the
Court; it is addressed rather to the nature of that criticism or comment and the manner
in which it was carried out.
Moreover, where, as in the instant case, it is not only the individual members of the
Court but the Court itself as an institution that has been falsely attacked, libel suits
cannot be an adequate remedy. 57

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. He was suspended from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders
from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.

The Supreme Court suspended him indefinitely but was reinstated four years later. He
in fact, became our DOJ Secretary during the incumbency of Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo.
He died in 2014 at the age of 83.

Reproduced here in toto, which appeared in the 30 November 1987 issue of the
"Philippine Daily Globe:"

Tanod Scores SC for Quashing Graft Case

TANODBAYAN Justice Raul M. Gonzalez said yesterday the Supreme

Court order stopping him from investigating graft cases involving
Antique Gov. Enrique Zaldivar can aggravate the thought that affluent
persons "an prevent the progress of a trial."

What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that while
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
course. Gonzalez told the Daily Globe in an exclusive interview.

Gonzalez said the high tribunal's order '"eightens the people's apprehension

over the justice system in this country, especially because the people have been
thinking that only the small fly can get it while big fishes go scot-free."

Gonzalez was reacting to an order issued by the tribunal last week after
Zaldivar petitioned the court to stop the Tanodbayan from investigating
graft cases filed against him.

Zaldivar had charged that Gonzalez was biased in his investigations

because the latter wanted to help promote the political fortunes of a friend
from Antique, lawyer Bonifacio Alentajan.

Acting on Zaldivar's petition, the high court stopped Gonzalez from

investigating a graft charge against the governor, and from instituting any
complaint with the Sandiganbayan.
While President Aquino had been prodding me to prosecute graft cases even if
they involve the high and mighty, the Supreme Court had been restraining
me. Gonzalez said.

In accordance with the President's order, Gonzalez said he had filed graft
cases against two "very powerful" officials of the Aquino government-
Commissioner Quintin Doromal of the Presidential Commission on Good
Government and Secretary Jiamil I.M. Dianlan of the Office of Muslim
Affairs and Cultural Communities.

While I don't wish to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the
Supreme Court, I am a little bit disturbed that (the order) can aggravate the
thinking of some people that affluent persons can prevent the progress of a
trial, he said.

He disclosed that he had a talk with the Chief Executive over the weekend
and that while she symphatizes with local officials who are charged in
court during election time, 'She said that it might be a disservice to the
people and the voters who are entitled to know their candidates.

Gonzalez said that while some cases filed against local officials during
election time could be mere harassment suits, the Constitution makes it a
right of every citizen to be informed of the character of tile candidate, who
should be subject to scrutiny. (Emphasis supplied)