Third Division (G.R. No. 194935, November 14, 2012)

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 194935, November 14, 2012 ]

ATTY. SANTIAGO R. MARAVILLAS V. JEROME S. GALUNAN, JR. AND
TERESA ELLERA-DULLA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November
2012, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 194935 (Atty. Santiago R. Maravillas v. Jerome S. Galunan, Jr. and Teresa Ellera-
Dulla).
RESOLUTION
In 2009 complainant Santiago R. Maravillas, Sangguniang Panglungsod member of Escalante

City, Negros Occidental, authored a proposed City Ordinance that, although opposed by other
members, was eventually approved. Still, in March 2010 three fellow council members filed a
disbarment case against him[1] for alleged violation of the lawyer's oath, abuse of authority,
ignorance of the law, and intentional disrespect of the profession.
On August 16, 2010, while the disbarment case was pending, respondents Teresa Ellera-Dulla
and Jerome S. Galunan, Jr., both reporters of SunStar Bacolod (SunStar) published an article on
Maravillas in their paper. The first two paragraphs of the article reported the existence of the
disbarment case against him and the status of the proceeding. Most of the article, however,
discussed the City Ordinance and related laws.
Maravillas claims in his complaint against respondents Dulla and Galunan that the article they
published seriously affected his good name and reputation as a Philippine Bar member and as an
elected official. And since SunStar also electronically published the article on its website, its
contents had been exposed to the whole world. Maravillas points out that, in publicizing the
disbarment case against him, Dulla and Galunan violated Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court,[2] warranting their punishment for contempt of court.
For their part, respondent Dulla and Galunan stress the public nature of the controversy that
they reported. The disbarment case against Maravillas had been public knowledge before the
publication and nothing in their article was new to its readers. Even if it was, since Maravillas
was an elected public official, respondents’ newspaper had the right to criticize his official
actuations. Respondents assert that the article did not even discuss any court proceedings.
Respondents' defense rests mainly on the freedom of expression.[3] They claim that the rule on
confidentiality of disbarment proceedings cannot subvert such constitutionally guaranteed
freedom.[4] Further, they aver that, since the SunStar is not readily found in Metro Manila
where the disbarment case was being heard, the article could not possibly influence the same.
As such, the three-fold purpose of the confidential nature of the proceeding is preserved.[5]
The issues in this case are 1) whether or not the confidentiality rule governing disbarment
proceedings must yield to the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression; and 2) whether
or not respondents Dulla and Galunan violated the confidentiality character of disbarment
proceedings.
The Court has consistently held that the standing of a lawyer as a member of the Bar is a strictly
confidential matter. Thus, only the Court can publicly disclose pending cases against a lawyer
when public interest requires. It is not for any person, other than the respondent, to publicize.[6]
Surely, it was not a matter for SunStar to freely publish — even if such is of "public knowledge"
as they claim.
Respondents of course invoke their freedom of expression. But that freedom is not absolute.
What escapes them is the special nature of disbarment proceedings. The members of the Bar
perform a public function that requires trust. Without such trust, the justice system could very
well suffer and fail. The Court has also held in a long line of cases that confidentiality regarding
such proceedings is a key to maintaining the integrity of the Court and its decisions. This is the
basis for the confidentiality rule as an exception to the guarantees of free expression. Many
newspapers and their editors have been held in contempt of court for circulating such
confidential matters.[7]
The Rules of Court proscribe imprisonment or a fine as punishment for the breach of the
confidentiality of disbarment proceedings.[8] But, considering that respondents did not
embellish upon the facts, the Court finds a fine sufficient.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS respondents Teresa Ellera-Dulla and Jerome S. Galunan, Jr.
GUILTY of indirect contempt of court and sentences them, jointly and severally, to pay a fine
of P20,000.00 in accordance with Sections 3(d) and 7, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Perez, J., Acting Member, per Special Order 1299 dated August 28, 2012.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Division Clerk of Court
[1] Alcos v. Maravillas, A.C. No. 8568 (pending before the Supreme Court).
[2] Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys.
Section 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and

confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like
its decisions in other cases.
[3] Constitution, Article III, Sec. 4.
[4] Supra note 2.
[5] Tan v. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, 532 Phil. 605 (2006), citing Ruben E. Agpalo, The
Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, 1st ed. 1991, p. 347. - "The confidential nature
of the proceedings has a three-fold purpose, to wit: (i) to enable the court and the investigator to
make the investigation free from any extraneous influence or interference; (ii) to protect the
personal and professional reputation of attorneys from baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive and irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting the publication of such charges
pending their resolution; and (iii) to deter the press from publishing the charges or proceedings
based thereon."
[6]A lawyer may waive the rule on confidentiality of proceedings against him or her. Saludo, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals, 522 Phil. 556, 561 (2006), citing Villalon, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 228 Phil. 420, 424 (1986).
[7]See In re Lozano and Quevedo, 54 Phil. 801 (1930); In re Abistado, 57 Phil. 668 (1932); In
re Emil P. Jurado, 313 Phil. 119 (1995).
[8]Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 7. – [For] "indirect contempt committed against a Regional
Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding
thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both." (Emphasis
supplied)
Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: December 04, 2012
This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
Supreme Court E-Library

Third Division (G.R. No. 194935, November 14, 2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Division (G.R. No. 194935, November 14, 2012)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Division (G.R. No. 194935, November 14, 2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 194935, November 14, 2012 ]

In 2009 complainant Santiago R. Maravillas, Sangguniang Panglungsod member of Escalante

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

[2] Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys.

Section 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and

[4] Supra note 2.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: December 04, 2012

Supreme Court E-Library

You might also like