Post

Gadon v. Robles

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
Gadon v. Robles

Case Title and Citation

In re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon’s Viral Video Against Raissa Robles
A.C. No. 13521, 2023-06-27
Supreme Court - Manila En Banc
Ponente: Per Curiam

Facts

  • The Court issued a January 4, 2022 Resolution taking cognizance of a viral video showing Atty. Gadon in a parked car, fuming and cursing at journalist Raissa Robles. The video features Gadon jabbering at the camera with language including: “Hoy, Raissa Robles, puki ng ina mo, hindot ka. Putang ina mo. …” among other profanities.
  • The January 4, 2022 Resolution noted prior public conduct by Gadon, including:
    1) Vowing to pulverize Muslim communities and to exterminate civilians if they did not cooperate against insurgency;
    2) Flashing his middle finger at supporters of former Chief Justice Sereno and making hostile remarks;
    3) Stating willingness to seek disbarment or otherwise defend his actions against critics;
    4) Alleged acts of dishonesty, arrogance and rudeness during impeachment proceedings against Sereno;
    5) Maliciously imputing to a public figure that the former President Aquino died of HIV.
  • The Court found Gadon’s language toward Robles violative of CPR Rule 7.03 (now CPRA Canon II, Sec. 2) and constitutive of prima facie gender-based online sexual harassment under RA 11313 (Secs. 3(e) and 12). The Court ordered Gadon to show cause by filing a Comment.
  • Gadon argued: (a) immediate preventive suspension was without due process; (b) his conduct was contextualized by Robles’ tweets; (c) RA 11313 did not apply since his expletives targeted Robles as a journalist, not due to gender; (d) the video was private and not disseminated by him; (e) he did not post the clip online. He also raised concerns about alleged extraneous influences (political connections, criticisms of Justices).
  • Gadon asserted that Robles’ tweets were false and libelous and claimed the video was intended only for her; he contended his remarks were expressions of anger, not misogyny. He also argued the video was private and not uploaded on social media.
  • The CPRA took effect on May 30, 2023, and provides retroactive application to pending cases. The Court held that Gadon’s act should be evaluated under CPRA.
  • The Court found Gadon unfit to remain a member of the Bar, citing prior administrative actions and multiple pending ibp cases. The Court concluded the conduct was scandalous and discrediting to the profession; it held that the CPRA’s social media provisions applied even if Gadon claimed the video was private.
  • The Court found that Gadon’s insinuations against Justices Leonen and Caguioa violated Canon II, Sec. 14 of the CPRA (insinuations of improper motive must be supported by substantial evidence). The Court deemed Gadon’s comments as direct contempt for making unfounded accusations against Justices.
  • The Court imposed immediate preventive suspension, citing the viral spread of the video and the need to preserve the integrity of the bar. It held the suspension proper even before Gadon’s answer was received, given the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings and the public interest in maintaining professional standards.
  • The Court rejected Gadon’s attempt to inhibit Justices Leonen and Caguioa, holding there was no basis for inhibition under Rule 8 and that the January 4, 2022 resolution was a collegial en banc action, not the result of one Justice’s influence.
  • The Court noted the CPRA’s retroactive application and held that Gadon’s conduct violated both the old CPR and the new CPRA, with CPRA applicable to pending cases.

Issues

  1. Did Atty. Gadon violate the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and related provisions through his conduct and the subject video?
  2. Should Atty. Gadon be disbarred for these acts, including the conduct constituting direct contempt of court?
  3. Was the immediate preventive suspension proper in light of due process concerns and the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings?

Ruling

  1. Yes — Atty. Gadon violated the CPRA (Canon II, Sec. 2; Sec. 36 on responsible use of social media) and related provisions, based on the subject video and the language used against Robles.
  2. Yes — The Court disbarred Atty. Gadon, concluding such conduct demonstrates lack of good moral character and warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment; the Court also found direct contempt of court for unfounded accusations against Justices Leonen and Caguioa.
  3. Yes — The immediate preventive suspension was proper; the Court found the video’s virality and the need to protect the integrity of the bar justified immediate action, even prior to Gadon’s answer.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • The CPRA (Canon II) codifies dignified conduct, prohibits abuse and harassment, and requires respectful language; Sections 3 and 4 mandate a safe environment and dignified language, while Section 36 imposes responsibility for social media use. Gadon’s repeated use of “puki ng ina mo,” “hindot ka,” “putang ina mo,” and “magpakantot ka sa aso” is profane, scandalous, and discrediting to the profession. The Court rejected Gadon’s attempts to justify the language as passionate defense or private conduct.
  • The Court held that lawyers’ private conduct can be disciplinable if it reflects lack of probity or good demeanor; it stressed that a lawyer’s professional duties extend to private life (Velasco v. Causing; Belo-Henares v. Guevarra; Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago).
  • The Court found Gadon’s remarks against Robles potentially violative of RA 11313’s gender-based online harassment provisions, which penalize acts causing psychological distress or fear of personal safety, regardless of the victim’s own stated feelings.
  • The Court considered the matter sui generis; disbarment proceedings are not purely civil or criminal, and the primary objective is public protection, the Bar’s integrity, and deterrence (Dayos v. Buri; Saludares v. Saludares). The Court emphasized that sanctions must be proportionate and justified by clear acts of misconduct, not personal animosity.
  • The CPRA’s retroactive application to pending cases was invoked to evaluate Gadon’s acts under the new standards, given the Act’s general transitory provisions (Sections 1–3). The Court found no basis to inhibit Justices Leonen or Caguioa; it treated the January 4, 2022 Resolution as a collegial act of the entire Court (en banc). The Court highlighted the collegial nature of the Supreme Court and the presumption of regularity in official acts.
  • Direct contempt was found for unfounded accusations against court officers, reinforcing the judiciary’s power to maintain respect for the courts (Tallado v. Racoma; Lorenzo Shipping Corp.; Baculi v. Belen).
  • The Court weighed aggravating factors (e.g., previous administrative cases against Gadon) and mitigating circumstances (none substantial) in determining the sanction. It cited Advincula v. Macabata and Saludares v. Saludares for the standard of sanctions in disbarment cases.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Good moral character is essential for bar membership; conduct violating ethics can lead to disbarment.
  • CPRA governs professional responsibility and has retroactive effect to pending cases; sanctions may be imposed under CPRA principles even for acts committed before its enactment if relevant.
  • A lawyer’s private conduct can be discipline-worthy if it reflects on fitness to practice law or undermines the profession’s dignity.
  • Courts may impose direct contempt for unfounded or baseless accusations against court officers; respect for judicial authority is essential to the administration of justice.
  • The conduct of lawyers online, including social media use, is governed by CPRA Canon II, Section 36 (responsible use) and related provisions addressing a dignified and respectful discourse.

Disposition

  • The respondent, Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon, is DISBARRED from the practice of law; his name is to be removed from the Roll of Attorneys (Office of the Bar Confidant to implement).
  • Gadon is found GUILTY of direct contempt of Court; a fine of ₱2,000.00 is imposed, payable within ten days from receipt of the Decision.
  • The Decision is immediately executory.
  • The Court noted the existence of multiple pending or prior administrative cases against Gadon before IBP and authorized the relevant bodies to disseminate the decision.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • This is a per curiam decision; no separate concurring or dissenting opinions are stated in the text. The decision reflects a unified stance of the Court En Banc.

Significance / Notes

  • Reinforces the professional standards for lawyers, underscoring that public and private conduct reflect on the bar’s integrity and may lead to disbarment.
  • Affirms that CPRA applies retroactively to pending cases, affecting how disciplinary actions are assessed in ongoing proceedings.
  • Emphasizes the judiciary’s authority to sanction conduct that undermines public trust in the legal profession, including direct contempt for unfounded allegations against judicial officers.
  • Highlights the impact of social media on professional responsibility and the duty to use media responsibly (Canon II, Sec. 36).
  • Demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to act swiftly in disciplinary matters to preserve the dignity of the profession and the administration of justice.
Judicial Ethics Disciplinary Cases Contempt of Court
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.