AM 07 09 13 SC; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC; August 8, 2008
IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COLUMNS OF MR. AMADO P. MACASAET PUBLISHED IN MALAYA DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20 AND 21, 2007.
FACTS
This case involves indirect contempt proceedings against newspaper publisher Amado P. Macasaet. His columns in the Malaya newspaper, published on four consecutive days in September 2007, detailed an alleged bribery incident involving an unnamed “lady justice.” The articles described a scenario where a secretary, identified as a niece of a late Supreme Court Justice, was fired after discovering an estimated P10 million in cash delivered in gift-wrapped boxes to her employer. The columns insinuated the bribe was connected to a case and urged the secretary to expose the justice to save the judiciary’s reputation. Macasaet later admitted under oath that his sole source was a “Court insider” whose identity he refused to divulge, and he could not verify the truth of the allegations.
ISSUE
Whether Amado P. Macasaet is guilty of indirect contempt for publishing the series of columns alleging bribery in the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes, Macasaet is guilty of indirect contempt. The Court balanced the constitutional freedom of the press against the imperative of preserving judicial independence and integrity. While the press has the right to criticize the courts, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. The columns, based on an unverified single source, constituted scurrilous attacks that imputed bribery to the entire membership of the Supreme Court and other courts, thereby undermining public confidence in the judiciary. The articles were not fair and true reports nor legitimate criticism; they were unsubstantiated accusations presented as fact, which clearly tend to impede, obstruct, and degrade the administration of justice. By publishing these allegations without verification and refusing to reveal his source to aid any investigation, Macasaet abused the freedom of the press. His actions fell under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, pertaining to improper conduct tending to impede the administration of justice. The Court imposed a fine of ₱30,000.00, emphasizing that such unfounded attacks on judicial integrity cannot be tolerated as they erode the very foundation of a functioning justice system.