G.R. No. 79690 -707 and G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989
ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by counsel for respondent Raul M. Gonzalez, a lawyer and the then Tanodbayan-Ombudsman, seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s per curiam Resolution dated October 7, 1988. In that prior Resolution, the Court found Gonzalez guilty of contempt of court and gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the bar. The charges stemmed from his contumacious statements, made both in a pleading filed before the Court and in statements given to the media, which were deemed a frontal assault on the integrity of the Court and the judicial system. The Court had suspended him indefinitely from the practice of law.

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration was whether the Supreme Court erred in its procedures and findings in holding respondent Gonzalez in contempt and imposing disciplinary sanctions, specifically concerning the classification of contempt, the applicable disciplinary procedure, and the constitutionality of the penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration, affirming its previous rulings and clarifying its legal logic. The Court rejected the argument that it erroneously charged Gonzalez with indirect contempt but convicted him of direct contempt. It explained that the phrase “in facie curiae” was used not as a strict technical term for direct contempt but to convey that his acts constituted a serious challenge flaunted before the Court. Crucially, the Court did not summarily punish him under Rule 71 for direct contempt; instead, it afforded him ample opportunity to explain and defend himself in line with due process.
The Court also dismissed the procedural challenge regarding the application of Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court on disbarment. It held that the referral of a case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or the Solicitor General under Rule 139(b) is not mandatory, especially when the Supreme Court initiates proceedings motu proprio based on acts committed before it. Since the facts were undisputed and the issues were purely legal, no further factual investigation by another body was necessary. The Court emphasized its inherent power to discipline lawyers for misconduct, particularly when the acts are perpetrated against the Court itself.
Regarding the penalty, the Court found no merit in the claim that indefinite suspension constitutes cruel or inhuman punishment. It reasoned that the sanction’s indefiniteness actually benefits the respondent by placing the key to his reinstatement in his own hands. He can purge himself of contempt by demonstrating genuine repentance and a commitment to the ethical standards of the legal profession. The denial of the motion was declared final.