G.R. Nos.

79690-707 October 7, 1988

ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR vs. RAUL M. GONZALEZ,
FACTS:
The following are the subjects of this Resolution filed by the Petitioner : a Motion, dated
9 February 1988, to Cite in Contempt filed by petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar against
public respondent Special Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez, in
connection with G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578. and a Resolution of this
Court dated 2 May 1988 requiring respondent Hon. Raul Gonzalez to show cause why
he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative sanctions
for making certain public statements. 
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. In respect of the latter,
petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of a news article which appeared in the
30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe." 

ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech
towards the Court?

RULING:
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.
Only slightly (if at all) less important is the public interest in the capacity of the Court
effectively to prevent and control professional misconduct on the part of lawyers who
are, first and foremost, indispensable participants in the task of rendering justice to
every man. Some courts have held, persuasively it appears to us, and that a lawyer's
right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman.
While the Court may allow criticism it has In Re: Almacen held: Intemperate and unfair
criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that
subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. The lawyer's duty to render respectful
subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence,
in the assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect
are enjoined to rein up their tempers.