Fortun v.

Quinsayas
Carpio, J. | G.R. No. 194578 | Feb. 13, 2013
Topic: Rule 71 - Contempt
Nature: Petition for Contempt
Memory Aid: Good faith is not a defense in civil contempt.
 
PARTIES
PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN, Petitioner, vs.
PRIMA JESUSA B. QUINSAYAS, MA. GEMMA OQUENDO, DENNIS AYON, NENITA OQUENDO, ESMAEL MANGUDADATU, JOSE PAVIA,
MELINDA QUINTOS DE JESUS, REYNALDO HULOG, REDMOND BATARIO, MALOU MANGAHAS, DANILO GOZO, GMA NETWORK INC., through its
new editors Raffy Jimenez and Victor Sollorano, SOPHIA DEDACE, ABS-CBN CORPORATION, through the Head of its News Group, Maria Ressa,
CECILIA VICTORIA OREÑA-DRILON, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, INC. represented by its Editor-in-Chief Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, TETCH
TORRES, PHILIPPINE STAR represented by its Editor-in-Chief Isaac Belmonte, and EDU PUNAY, Respondents.

DISPUTED MATTER
Whether respondents violated the confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect
contempt of court.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner Fortun is the counsel for Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr., the principal accused for the Maguindanao Massacre. In
November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas, et al. filed a disbarment complaint against petitioner Fortun, which case is still pending.
Petitioner Fortun alleged that several media outlets, such as GMA News TV internet website, Inquirer.net, and
PhilStar, among others, all published articles giving details to the disbarment allegations. He also alleged that Atty.
Quinsayas, et al. actively disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint against him in violation of Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court on the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. In addition, respondent media groups and
personalities conspired with Atty. Quinsayas, et al. by publishing the confidential materials on their respective media
platforms. Petitioner pointed out that Drilon discussed the disbarment complaint with Atty.Quinsayas in a television
program viewed nationwide.
 
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Quinsayas is guilty of indirect contempt for distributing copies of the disbarment
complaint against Atty. Fortun to members of the media (penalty: Fine of P20,000). Since the disbarment complaint is a
matter of public interest, legitimate media had a right to publish such fact under freedom of the press. Petitioner also failed
to substantiate his claim that respondent media groups and personalities acted in bad faith and that they conspired with
one another in their postings and publications of the filing of a disbarment complaint against him. However, as to Atty.
Quinsayas, she is bound by Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in the disbarment case
against petitioner and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with the confidential
nature of disbarment proceedings. Good faith or the absence of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil
contempt.
DOCTRINE
The proceedings to punish a civil contempt are remedial and for the purpose of the preservation of the right of private
persons. It has been held that civil contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court.
 It has further been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one can be punished
for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.
 On the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil contempt proceedings is remedial, the
defendant’s intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. Hence, good faith or the absence of intent to violate the
court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt.
 
FACTS
The antecedents of the case are connected to the Maguindanao Massacre case; petitioner is the counsel for Datu Andal
Ampatuan, Jr., the principal accused in the murder cases filed and raffled to the RTC of Quezon City.
 During the pendency of the case, respondent Quinsayas, counsel of Mangudadatu, filed a disbarment complaint against
Fortun, the details of which were published and circulated among several news outlets, particularly, the GMA News TV
internet website, the Inquirer.net, PhilStar, and ANC (their heads were also made respondents in this case).
 Fortun alleges that the dissemination of the details of the disbarment complaint against him violated Rule 139-B of the
ROC on the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings, exposed this Court and its investigators to outside influence
and public interference, as well as opened his professional and personal reputation to attack. Petitioner prayed for the
penalty of imprisonment.
 
 
ISSUE/ HELD
W/N respondents violated the confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect
contempt of court - ATTY. PRIMA JESUSA QUINSAYAS IS GUILTY OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT for distributing copies of the
disbarment complaint against Atty. Fortun to members of the media. Penalty: Fine of P20,000.
 
The contempt charge filed by petitioner is in the nature of a criminal contempt. In Pp. v. Godoy, the Court made a distinction
between criminal and civil contempt.
Criminal Contempt Civil Contempt
A criminal contempt is conduct that is On the other hand, civil contempt consists in failing to do something ordered
directed against the dignity and to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party
authority of the court or a judge therein and is, therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the
acting judicially; it is an act violated order is made
obstructing the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court
into disrepute or disrespect.
A criminal contempt, being directed On the other hand, the proceedings to punish a civil contempt are remedial
against the dignity and authority of and for the purpose of the preservation of the right of private persons. It has
the court, is an offense against been held that civil contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a
organized society and, in addition, is power of the court. It has further been stated that intent is a necessary
also held to be an offense against element in criminal contempt, and that no one can be punished for a criminal
public justice which raises an issue contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it. On
between the public and the accused, the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil
and the proceedings to punish it are contempt proceedings is remedial, the defendant’s intent in committing the
punitive. contempt is immaterial. Hence, good faith or the absence of intent to violate
the court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt.
 
In Pp. vs. Castelo, the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle of privileged communication may be
invoked in a contempt proceeding. The Court recognizes that “publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are
protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech.”
 
General Rule: disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this Court.
Exception: The filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of public concern
 
Application: The interest of the public is not on petitioner himself but primarily on his involvement and participation as defense
counsel in the Maguindanao Massacre case.
 Since the disbarment complaint is a matter of public interest, legitimate media had a right to publish such fact under
freedom of the press. The Court also recognizes that respondent media groups and personalities merely acted on a news
lead they received when they reported the filing of the disbarment complaint.
 The distribution by Atty. Quinsayas to the media of the disbarment complaint, by itself, is not sufficient to absolve the
media from responsibility for violating the confidentiality rule.
 
Exception to the Exception: However, since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is
representing a matter of public concern, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against
petitioner is a matter of public concern, the media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment case as legitimate news.
 
Petitioner also failed to substantiate his claim that respondent media groups and personalities acted in bad faith and that they
conspired with one another in their postings and publications of the filing of a disbarment complaint against him. Respondent
media groups and personalities reported the filing of the disbarment complaint without any comments or remarks but merely as
it was – a news item.
 
However, as to Atty. Quinsayas, she is bound by Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in the
disbarment case against petitioner and as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with the
confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However, instead of preserving its confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated
copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court. Indirect
contempt against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding six months or both. Atty. Quinsayas was fined P20,000.

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas GUILTY of indirect contempt for distributing copies of the disbarment
complaint against Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun to members of the media and we order her to pay a FINE of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000). SO ORDERED.