G.R. No.

77422 April 15, 1988

LIWAYWAY PUBLISHING, INC. AND U.S. AUTOMOTIVE CO., INC., petitioners,
vs.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, HON. RAMON A. DIAZ, DEPUTY MINISTER, HON. MARY
CONCEPCION BAUTISTA COMMISSIONER, respondents.
G.R. No. 79126 April 15, 1988
BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION (BULLETIN), petitioner,
vs.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) SECRETARY RAMON A. DIAZ AND COMMISSIONER
MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, respondents.
RESOLUTION

TEEHANKEE, C.J.:
These two cases are jointly resolved because of the common identity of and related issues by the parties, without prejudice to the
writing of an extended opinion.
G.R. 77422 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order filed on February 24, 1987
by Liwayway Publishing, Inc. (Liwayway hereafter) and U.S. automotive Co., Inc. (US Automotive hereafter) seeking to annul and
set aside two writs of sequestration issued by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (Commission hereafter) on
February 12, 1987 on the shares of stocks of U.S. Automotive in Liwayway, as well as the implementing directive addressed to the
Central Bank Governor of even date and to prohibit the Commission from conducting proceedings in connection with the said
sequestration.
G.R. 79126 is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary writ of injunction and urgent ex-parte
restraining order filed on July 27, 1987 by Bulletin Publishing Corporation (Bulletin hereafter) to set aside the April 14, 1987 order
issued by the Commission which declared their intent to vote the "sequestered shares" in Bulletin; to prohibit the voting of Bulletin
shares by respondents, their successors, on their representatives, to enjoin respondents, their successors, or their representatives
from taking part or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any acts, in the management of Bulletin; and to direct the immediate
acceptance by the Commission of Bulletin's offer to debosit in cash, under escrow, so as to protect the interest of the government, if
any, a specific amount for the value of sequestered shares in the Bulletin pursuant to the restrictions on their transferability as
provided in its Articles of Incorporation, with any banking institution as may be designated by this Court, pending and subject to final
determination/adjudication of the ownership of said shares and to lift the sequestration order of April 11, 1986.
Liwayway and Bulletin are domestic corporations engaged in the business of publication of newspapers and magazines. The former
publishes a daily newspaper, the "Balita," and three weekly vernacular magazines, namely, "Liwayway," "Bisaya" and "Bannawag,"
while the latter publishes the "Manila Bulletin" a daily newspaper and its weekly magazines, The "Philippine Panorama," all of
general and national circulation. In both corporations, Mr. Emiho T. Yap is the biggest stockholder and Chairman of the Board of
Directors. As of February 21, 1986, he held 2,617 Bulletin shares, while, U.S. Automotive, 1 a corporation wholly owned and
controlled by him and his family, held 318,084 shares out of the total outstanding Bulletin shares of 567,808.5 with 198,052.5 thereof
as treasury shares and 765,861 subscribed shares. 2 In Liwayway, "(B)y April, 1986, ... U.S. Automotive Co. owned almost 70% of
total Liwayway issued shares ... 3
I. LIWAYWAY CASE
In G.R. 77422, the Commission had issued on February 12, 1987 two writs of sequestration, one addressed to the
President/Chairman of the Board of the U.S. Automotive sequestering the President/Chairman's shares of stocks in the Liwayway as
of April 15, 1986, and the other addressed to the President/Chairman of the Board of Liwayway sequestering all shares of stocks
pertaining to U.S. Automotive in Liwayway Publishing, Inc. as of April 15, 1986.
On the same date, the Commission requested the Central Bank to instruct all commercial banks and non-bank financial institutions
not to allow any withdrawals, transfers or remittances from funds or assets under any type of deposit accounts, trust accounts,
and/or money market placements, including safety deposit boxes, stocks and bonds, bearer certificates and unnumbered accounts,
except those which may pertain to payment of regular salaries and wages of Liwayway and HM Holding and Management, Inc.
(hereafter HMH&M).

Petitioners' plea for a temporary restraining order was heard on February 26, 1987, the hearing being limited to whether a
restraining order should issue to restrain the commission against denying Liwayway the use and availment of its funds in the banks
to put out its regular publications as well as against the Commission's interference or intervention in the management or operations
of Liwayway, considering the Central Bank's blanket memorandum, at the Commission's behest, to all banks not to allow any
withdrawals or remittances from its funds, except for "payment of regular salaries and wages" which would virtually shut down its
publications.
The then Solicitor General, now Secretary of Justice, Sedfrey Ordoez, as well as the Commission's then Vice-Chairman, now
Chairman, Ramon Diaz, assured the Court that Liwayway's funds would not be choked off and that the Commission would not in
any way interfere or intervene in the management or operations of the publication nor with its editorial policy or reportage or in any
way impinge upon its freedom. It was brought out that Liwayway made over P8 million in 1986 and paid more than half of that in
income tax, and they agreed further to preserve the status quo ante pending joining of the issues on the merits or a showing of
some irregularity that would warrant the Commission's intervention.
On February 27, 1987, the Solicitor General filed his manifestation as undertaken by him, submitting a copy of the Commission's
letter dated February 26, 1987, to the CB Governor, Jose Fernandez, modifying its previous memorandum of February 12th and
asking him to instruct all banks to honor all checks of Liwayway and further stating that "(A)lthough mention is made in the letter of
the naming of a fiscal agent, respondent Commission is not naming anyone at this time.
On the issue of freedom of the press, the Court noted with commendation the Solicitor General's pledge at the hearing that the
Commission will not in any way act in such a way as to impinge upon the freedom of expression or freedom to publish the
newspaper. The Court gave due faith and credence thereto and the above-cited undertakings of the Commission. Accordingly, in
lieu of a temporary restraining order which has been rendered unnecessary by the Commission's manifestation and undertakings,
the Court enjoined faithful compliance therewith by all concerned.
This renders moot this particular issue of unwarranted intervention of the Commission and impairment of press freedom. But with
the closing out of this case, as hereafter ordered and the denial of petitioner's plea to lift the sequestration orders, the Court will
formalize the parties' agreement through the issuance of an injunction to the same effect, to assure compliance regardless of any
change in the composition of the Commission or of other public officials concerned.
As to the sequestration orders, the Commission claims that Emilio Yap, founder of U.S. Automotive Co., organized long before
martial law, is a "crony" if not downright "dummy" of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos. Mr. Yap, in turn, has strongly
countered the Commission's allegations as to his alleged business association with Mr. Marcos and their prima facie sufficiently in
this wise:
On March 2, 1987, petitioners filed its manifestation and reply to the opposition alleging the following:
1. Mr. Yap admits that he owns 2,508 shares of stocks of BASECO which constitute less than 2% of the total
218,819 outstanding shares of stocks of the company. He acquired the original 240 shares by subscription at
the time of incorporation and augmented by stock dividends to the present stockholding of 2,508 shares.
2. Regarding the BASECO certificates of shares of stocks purportedly belonging to Yap and endorsed to
"someone" whose name was left in blank this Court should require the respondents to produce the originals
of said stock certificates in order to verify the claim that they have been endorsed in blank.
3. He had resigned from the chairmanship of BASECO since October 20, 1983. Out of his duly paid investment
of P60,000, he never received any cash dividend nor profited from BASECO.
4. He has never been a stockholder nor an officer of the Jai-Alai Corporation.
5. He owned only one qualifying share in the Manila International Port Terminals, Inc.(MIPTI) which he later
endorsed to the new MIPTI Chairman. He resigned as chairman of the Board before the Aquino administration.
6. He invested in the Bulletin in 1961, as second biggest stockholder on the invitation of Gen. Menzi long before
Mr. Marcos became president.
7. All original stock certificates issued to U.S. Automotive and treasury shares are all in the respective
possession of the registered owners and have not been endorsed to anyone.
But as the Court has consistently held and reiterated in PCGG vs. Pea, G.R. No. 77663, decided also this month, the Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts, and the parties' conflicting factual contentions have to be threshed out and adjudged in the
Sandiganbayan, which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

II. BULLETIN CASE

In G.R. 79126, the Commission issued on April 22, 1986 an order sequestering the shares of former President Marcos, Emilio Yap,
Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., their nominees or agents in the Bulletin Publishing Corporation. In an order dated April 14, 1987, the
Commission declared their intent to vote the sequestered shares. Thus, on July 27, 1987, the instant petition was filed seeking the
nullification of the above mentioned order. It is petitioner's contention that what is at stake here is the freedom of our press
institutions to independently manage their own affairs and effectively preserve editorial policies and objectives, without the shadow
of government participation in the same, that governmental presence in petitioner's board will most certainly cast that shadow and
threaten the independence of the press as an institution of mass media protected and guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court
issued a temporary retraining order on July 28, 1987 ordering the respondents, their successors, agents or representatives to cease
and desist from voting Bulletin shares, or otherwise from taking part or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any acts in the
management of the Bulletin daily newspaper.
Respondents' comment alleged that the Commission will vote only the shares of Cesar Zalamea (121,178 shares), Eduardo
Cojuangco, Jr. (46,626 shares), and Jose Y. Campos (46,620.5 shares) for a total of 214,424.5 shares which were the subject of the
sequestration order and that the shares of Emilio Yap were excluded by virtue of the Commission's order dated March 16, 1987.
Subsequently, however, petitioner alleged 4 in its memorandum of January 2, 1988 that on July 31, 1987, the Commission sold to it
46,620.5 Bulletin shares of Mr. Jose Y. Campos for a total price of P8,173,506.06 per PTC Check No. 606380 and voucher and
121,178 Bulletin shares of Cesar Zalamea for a total price of P21,244,926.96 per PTC Check No. 607887 and voucher issued on
October 15, 1987. As to the remaining 46,626 Bulletin shares of Mr. Cojuangco, Jr., under sequestration, the petitioner has offered
to deposit in cash the value of the shares with the Commission, in the amount of P8,174,470.32 per PTC Check No. 607590, issued
on October 15, 1987 which awaits the Commission's acceptance.
Respondents' memorandum of January 26, 1988, however, stated that only Mr. Campos' shares were voluntarily surrendered,
hence, they were accepted by the Commission. On the matter of the shares of Cojuangco and Zalamea, it contended that unless
there is a confession or admission that the said shares are "ill-gotten assets" of Mr. Marcos and/or his cronies, the true ownership of
the shares has still to be determined by the Sandiganbayan where Civil Case No. 0022 entitled "Republic ... vs. Emilio T. Yap, et al."
is pending. Petitioner, however, denies being a party therein. Subject to said admission, the Commission considers it premature to
enter into any transaction affecting those shares pending determination of their ownership.
In their Memorandum, respondents Commission and members expressly have declared that the Commission no longer intends to
exercise its right to vote the sequestered shares, that the Commission's present role is confined largely to monitoring Bulletin's
activities in terms of preventing any dissipation and disposition of funds and assets and does not extend to the exercise of the voting
of the shares, unless subsequent events or circumstances call for such exercise pursuant to law. Thus, respondents urge the
dismissal of the petition "for want of factual basis." As in the Liwayway case, the Commission concedes that it may not lawfully
intervene and participate in the management and operations of a private mass media such as Bulletin for the purpose of maintaining
its freedom and independence as guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore the temporary restraining order heretofore issued on
July 28, 1987 ordering the Commission or its representative to "cease and desist from voting the shares or otherwise from
intervening directly or indirectly in the management of petitioner Bulletin" will be made permanent. The issue left for resolution is
whether the Commission may continue to refuse to accept the cash deposit offered for the present balance of 46,626 minority
sequestered shares in the name of Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco as prayed for in the petition.
It is admitted of record that the Sequestration Order of April 22, 1986 is limited to a minority of 214,424.5 shares in the name of
Messrs. Cesar Zalamea, Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Jose Y. Campos at the time of its issuance, as follows:
Cesar Zalamea 121,178 shares
Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. 46,626 shares
Jose Y. Campos 46,620.5 shares
Total 214,424.5 shares
and that the Bulletin shares of Emilio Yap owned by him since 1961 were excluded from the said sequestration, by virtue of the
Commission's order of March 16, 1987.
Likewise, in consonance with the Commission's very purpose and objective of preserving the assets and ill-gotten wealth that may
be recovered, pertaining to the deposed President Marcos, and converting them into cash to be returned to the people in
government projects such as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), it has acknowledged the recognized vested
right of the Bulletin to purchase Bulletin shares that may be put up for sale, since the government is barred anyway from acquiring
ownership and management of private mass media such as the Bulletin Publishing, Inc. under Art. XVI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution
which provides: "Sec. 11(1). The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to
corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens."

In the letter dated July 8, 1987 of Commission Chairman Diaz to Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Media ng Pilipinas (KAMMP),
he recognized the restrictions on the transferability of Bulletin shares accruing in favor of petitioner Bulletin when he wrote.
In view of the foregoing, when and if we dispose of those shares, the first step to take is to offer the same to the
corporation, and the corporation may offer it to the other stockholders if it so desires. But we cannot avoid the
circumstance that the corporation itself will desire to buy the stocks and therefore, the transaction will end here.
(1) Thus, on July 31, 1987, PCGG sold to petitioner Bulletin 46,620.5 Bulletin shares of Mr. Jose Y. Campos for a total price of
P8,173,506.06 per PTC Check No. 606380 and Voucher (pp. 11-12, Petitioner's Addendum).
(2) The PCGG also sold to petitioner Bulletin 121,178 Bulletin shares of Mr. Cesar C. Zalamea for a total price of P21,244,926.96
and accepted PTC Check No. 607887 and Voucher issued on October 15, 1987 (pp. 12-13, Petitioner's Addendum), now as (Annex
'A'). As already noted hereinabove, there is a counter-allegation on the part of the Commission that it had not sold the Zalamea
shares but there are indications that it had accepted the check and voucher therefor as stated herein. Whatever be the case, this is
immaterial in the light of the resolution of the case providing for the exercise of petitioner Bulletin's right of preemption over such
shares.
(3) As to the remaining 46,626 Bulletin shares of Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. under sequestration, petitioner Bulletin has
consistently offered to deposit in cash the value of the shares with respondent PCGG, in the amount of P8,174,470.32 per PTC
check No. 607590, issued on October 15, 1987, and which awaits PCGG acceptance. (pp. 13-14, Petitioner's Addendum).
Petitioner correctly maintains that its offer in good faith to PCGG of the cash deposit for the sequestered shares will protect the
interest of the government, if any, pending final determination/adjudication of the matter.
The offer of cash deposit is in line with the government program on privatization and in keeping with constitutional guarantee of
press freedom and to maintain private mass media free from government intervention in its management directly or indirectly.
The Commission has nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting the cash deposit offered by petitioner for the shares in the
name of Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr.
The cash deposit being offered by petitioner is similar in nature and purpose to a cash bond put up for a litigant during the pendency
of the case. In both situations, the rights of the parties and of the government, are adequately protected.
This cash deposit including interest earning is to be applied on the said 46,626 shares under any of the following two (2) alternatives
specifically proposed by petitioner:
Alternative "A" To standby as full payment plus whatever interest earnings thereon upon final judgment of the
Court declaring the Republic of the Philippines as owners of the 46,626 shares, accompanied by the
corresponding original stock certificates, issued in the name of the government, duly endorsed in favor of the
Bulletin Publishing Corporation, free from liens and encumbrances; or
Alternative "B" To immediately return to Bulletin Publishing Corporation the cash deposit in the amount of
P8,174,470.32 plus whatever interest earnings thereon upon final judgment by the Court declaring that Mr.
Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. is the true owner of the 46,626 shares.
This Resolution is issued to uphold the freedom of our press institutions to independently manage their affairs and effectively
preserve their editorial policies and objectives, without the shadow of government participation and intervention. The Commission
itself has recognized that government presence in petitioner's Board will most certainly cast that shadow and threaten the
independence of the press which is protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, and hence had given up its initial Idea to vote the
sequestered shares in petitioner Bulletin.
ACCORDINGLY, in the Liwayway case, G.R. No. 77422, judgment is rendered.
1. As per agreement of the parties as set forth in the Resolution of March 3, 1987, enjoining the Commission from any act interfering
or intervening in any way or manner with the management or operations or afffirms of petitioner Liwayway Publishing, Inc.; and
2. Dismissing the petition for a writ of prohibition to enjoin respondents from enforcing in any manner the writs of sequestration
heretofore issued over the questioned Liwayway shares whose ownership will have to be tried and determined in the
Sandiganbayan.
In the Bulletin case, G.R. No. 79126, judgment is likewise rendered.

1. Making permanent the temporary restraining order heretofore issued on July 28, 1987;
2. Directing the Commission to accept the cash deposit of P8,174,470.32 offered by petitions; for the 46,626 sequestered shares in
the name of Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. expressly subject to the alternative conditions (A and B) hereinabove set forth, and likewise
directing the Commission to accept the cash deposit, if it has not actually sold the Cesar C. Zalamea Bulletin shares to petitioner
(supra, p. 13, par. [2]) of P21,244,926.96 for the sequestered shares of Bulletin in the name of Mr. Cesar Zalamea under the same
alternatives already mentioned; and
3. Remanding the case regarding the issue of ownership of the said sequestered Bulletin shares for determination and adjudication
to the Sandiganbayan.
Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 194578

February 13, 2013

PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN, Petitioner,

vs.
PRIMA JESUSA B. QUINSAYAS, MA. GEMMA OQUENDO, DENNIS AYON, NENITA OQUENDO, ESMAEL MANGUDADATU,
JOSE PAVIA, MELINDA QUINTOS DE JESUS, REYNALDO HULOG, REDMOND BATARIO, MALOU MANGAHAS, DANILO
GOZO, GMA NETWORK INC., through its new editors Raffy Jimenez and Victor Sollorano, SOPHIA DEDACE, ABS-CBN
CORPORATION, through the Head of its News Group, Maria Ressa, CECILIA VICTORIA OREA-DRILON, PHILIPPINE DAILY
INQUIRER, INC. represented by its Editor-in-Chief Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, TETCH TORRES, PHILIPPINE STAR represented by
its Editor-in-Chief Isaac Belmonte, and EDU PUNAY, Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court is a petition for Contempt filed by Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun (petitioner) against Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas (Atty.
Quinsayas), Ma. Gemma Oquendo (Gemma), Dennis Ayon (Ayon), Nenita Oquendo (Nenita), Esmael Mangudadatu (Mangudadatu), Jose Pavia
(Pavia), Melinda Quintos De Jesus (De Jesus), Reynaldo Hulog (Hulog), Redmond Batario (Batario), Malou Mangahas (Mangahas), and Danilo
Gozo (Gozo). Atty. Quinsayas and the other respondents, who are not from the media, are referred to in this case as Atty. Quinsayas, et al.
Petitioner also named as respondents GMA Network, Inc. (GMA Network) through its news editors Raffy Jimenez and Victor Sollorano, Sophia
Dedace (Dedace), ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) through the Head of its News Group Maria Ressa (Ressa), Cecilia Victoria Orea-Drilon
(Drilon), Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (PDI) represented by its Editor-in-Chief Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, Tetch Torres (Torres), Philippine Star
(PhilStar) represented by its Editor-in-Chief Isaac Belmonte, and Edu Punay (Punay). Respondents Atty. Quinsayas, et al. and respondent media
groups and personalities are collectively referred to in this case as respondents.
The Antecedent Facts
On 23 November 2009, a convoy of seven vehicles carrying the relatives of then Maguindanao vice-mayor Esmael "Toto" Mangudadatu, as well
as lawyers and journalists, was on their way to the Commission on Elections office in Shariff Aguak to file Mangudadatus Certificate of
Candidacy1 when they were accosted by a group of about 100 armed men at a checkpoint in Sitio Malating, Ampatuan town, some four to ten
kilometers from their destination.2 The group was taken hostage and brought to a hilly and sparsely-populated part of Sitio Magating, Barangay
Salman, Ampatuan, Maguindanao.3 The gruesome aftermath of the hostage-taking was later discovered and shocked the world. The hostages
were systematically killed by shooting them at close range with automatic weapons, and their bodies and vehicles were dumped in mass graves
and covered with the use of a backhoe.4 These gruesome killings became known as the Maguindanao Massacre. A total of 57 victims were killed,
30 of them journalists. Subsequently, criminal cases for Murder were filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 221,
and docketed as Criminal Cases No. Q-09-162148-172, Q-09-162216-31, Q-10-162652, and Q-10- 163766. Petitioner is the counsel for Datu
Andal Ampatuan, Jr. (Ampatuan, Jr.), the principal accused in the murder cases.
In November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas, et al. filed a disbarment complaint against petitioner before this Court, docketed as Bar Matter No. A.C.
8827. The disbarment case is still pending.

Petitioner alleged that on 22 November 2010, GMA News TV internet website posted an article, written by Dedace, entitled "Mangudadatu,
others seek disbarment of Ampatuan lawyer," a portion of which reads:
On Monday, Maguindanao Governor Esmael "Toto" Mangudadatu and four others filed a 33 page complaint against lawyer Sigrid Fortun whom
they accused of "engaging in every conceivable chichancery or artifice to unduly delay the proceedings by using and abusing legal remedies
available."5
On even date, Inquirer.net, the website of PDI, also published an article, written by Torres, which according to petitioner also stated details of the
disbarment case, as follows:
"Respondent Atty. Fortun had astutely embarked in an untiring quest to obstruct, impede and degrade the administration of justice by filing
countless causes of action, all in the hope of burying the principal issue of his clients participation or guilt in the murder of 57 people that illfated day of November 23, 2009," the petitioners said.6
Petitioner further alleged that on 23 November 2010, PhilStar published an article, written by Punay, which gave details of the disbarment
allegations, thus:
"Attorney Fortun used and abused legal remedies available and allowed under under the rules, muddled the issues and diverted the attention away
from the main subject matter of the cases, read the complaint.
***** ***** *****
"Respondent Attorney Fortuns act of misleading the prosecution and trial court is a dishonest/deceitful conduct violative of Code of Professional
Responsibility," read the complaint.
"In so doing, he diminished the public confidence in the law and the legal profession, rendering him unfit to be called a member of the Bar."7
Further, petitioner alleged that on 23 November 2010, Channel 23 aired on national television a program entitled "ANC Presents: Crying for
Justice: the Maguindanao Massacre." Drilon, the programs host, asked questions and allowed Atty. Quinsayas to discuss the disbarment case
against petitioner, including its principal points. Petitioner was allegedly singled out and identified in the program as the lead counsel of the
Ampatuan family.
Petitioner alleged that Atty. Quinsayas, et al. actively disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint against him in violation of Rule 139-B
of the Rules of Court on the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. Petitioner further alleged that respondent media groups and
personalities conspired with Atty. Quinsayas, et al. by publishing the confidential materials on their respective media platforms. Petitioner
pointed out that Drilon discussed the disbarment complaint with Atty. Quinsayas in a television program viewed nationwide
Petitioner alleged that the public circulation of the disbarment complaint against him exposed this Court and its investigators to outside influence
and public interference. Petitioner alleged that opinion writers wrote about and commented on the disbarment complaint which opened his
professional and personal reputation to attack. He alleged that the purpose of respondents in publishing the disbarment complaint was to malign
his personal and professional reputation, considering the following: (1) the bases of the charges were not new but were based on incidents that
supposedly took place in January 2010; (2) it was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Maguindanao Massacre to fuel hatred, contempt
and scorn for Ampatuan, Jr. and his counsel and violated the accuseds right to presumption of innocence and due process; (3) it was published
following articles written about petitioners advocacy for the rights of an accused and negated the impact of these articles on the public; and (4)
respondents knew that the charges were baseless as petitioner always opted for speedy trial and protection of the accuseds rights at trial.
Petitioner further alleged that in announcing their "causes of action" in the disbarment case, respondents were only seeking the approval and
sympathy of the public against him and Ampatuan, Jr.
In its Comment, GMA Network alleged that it has no newspaper or any publication where it could have printed the article. It alleged that it did
not broadcast the disbarment complaint on its television station. GMA Network alleged that the publication had already been done and completed
when Atty. Quinsayas distributed copies of the disbarment complaint and thus, the members of the media who reported the news and the media
groups that published it on their website, including GMA Network, did not violate the confidentiality rule. GMA Network further alleged that
Dedace, a field reporter for the judiciary, acted in good faith and without malice when she forwarded the news to the news desk. GMA News also
acted in good faith in posting the news on its website. GMA Network denied that it conspired with the other respondents in publishing the news.
GMA Network alleged that it posted the disbarment complaint, without any unfair, critical, and untruthful comment, and only after it was
"published" by Atty. Quinsayas, et al. who furnished copies of the disbarment complaint to the media reporters. GMA Network alleged that it had
no intention to malign petitioners personal and professional reputation in posting the news about the disbarment complaint on its website.
In her Comment, Dedace clarified that she is a field news reporter of GMA Network and not a writer of the GMA News TV website. Her beat
includes the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Department of Justice. Dedace alleged that on 22 November 2010, she received an
advice from fellow field reporter Mark Merueas that the lawyer of Mangudadatu would be filing a disbarment case against petitioner. She
waited at the Supreme Court. At around 5:00 p.m., Atty. Quinsayas arrived. Atty. Quinsayas gave copies of the petition to news reporters and
Dedace received one. Dedace prepared and sent her news story to GMA Network where it went to the editor. Dedace alleged that she did not

breach the rule on confidentiality of disbarment proceedings against lawyers when she reported the filing of the disbarment complaint against
petitioner. She alleged that she acted in good faith and without malice in forwarding her news story to the news desk and that she had no intention
to, and could not, influence or interfere in the proceedings of the disbarment case. She further alleged that she honestly believed that the filing of
the disbarment complaint against petitioner was newsworthy and should be reported as news.
PDI alleged in its Comment that it shares content with the Inquirer.net website through a syndication but the latter has its own editors and publish
materials that are not found on the broadsheet. It alleged that Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. and Inquirer Interactive, Inc. are two different
corporations, with separate legal personalities, and one may not be held responsible for the acts of the other.
Torres8 alleged in her Comment that on 17 November 2010, a private prosecutor told her and several other reporters that a disbarment case would
be filed against petitioner. The disbarment case was actually filed on 22 November 2010 when Torres received a copy of the complaint. Since the
lead of the story came from a lawyer, Torres did not consider that writing a story about the filing of the disbarment complaint might amount to
contempt of court. Torres alleged that the writing of the story was an independent act and she did not conspire with any of the other respondents.
Torres maintained that she acted in good faith in writing the news report because the Maguindanao Massacre was a matter of public concern and
the allegations in the disbarment complaint were in connection with petitioners handling of the case. Torres further asserted that petitioner is a
public figure and the public has a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs and character.
In her Comment, Ressa alleged that she was the former head of ABS-CBNs News and Current Affairs Group and the former Managing Director
of ANC. However, she was on terminal leave beginning 30 October 2010 in advance to the expiration of her contract on 3 January 2011. Ressa
alleged that she had no participation in the production and showing of the broadcast on 23 November 2010. Ressa adopts the answer of her corespondents ABS-CBN and Drilon insofar as it was applicable to her case.
ABS-CBN and Drilon filed a joint Comment. ABS-CBN alleged that ABS-CBN News Channel, commonly known as ANC, is maintained and
operated by Sarimanok Network News (SNN) and not by ABS-CBN. SNN, which produced the program "ANC Presents: Crying for Justice: the
Maguindanao Massacre," is a subsidiary of ABS-CBN but it has its own juridical personality although SNN and ABS-CBN have interlocking
directors. ABS-CBN and Drilon alleged that the presentation and hosting of the program were not malicious as there was no criminal intent to
violate the confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings. They alleged that the program was a commemoration of the Maguindanao Massacre
and was not a report solely on the disbarment complaint against petitioner which took only a few minutes of the one-hour program. They alleged
that the program was not a publication intended to embarrass petitioner who was not even identified as the respondent in the disbarment
complaint. Drilon even cautioned against the revelation of petitioners name in the program. ABS-CBN and Drilon further alleged that prior to
the broadcast of the program on 23 November 2010, the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner was already the subject of
widespread news and already of public knowledge. They denied petitioners allegation that they conspired with the other respondents in violating
the confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings. Finally, they alleged that the contempt charge violates their right to equal protection because
there were other reports and publications of the disbarment complaint but the publishers were not included in the charge. They also assailed the
penalty of imprisonment prayed for by petitioner as too harsh.
In their joint Comment, respondents Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma alleged that petitioner failed to prove that they actively
participated in disseminating details of the disbarment complaint against him. They alleged that while they were the ones who filed the
disbarment complaint against petitioner, it does not follow that they were also the ones who caused the publication of the complaint. They alleged
that petitioner did not provide the name of any particular person, dates, days or places to show the alleged confederation in the dissemination of
the disbarment complaint.
Respondents De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, and Mangahas, in their capacity as members of the Board of Trustees of the Freedom Fund for Filipino
Journalists, Inc. (FFFJ) and Atty. Quinsayas, former counsel for FFFJ, also filed a joint Comment claiming that the alleged posting and
publication of the articles were not established as a fact. Respondents alleged that petitioner did not submit certified true copies of the articles and
he only offered to submit a digital video disk (DVD) copy of the televised program where Atty. Quinsayas was allegedly interviewed by Drilon.
Respondents alleged that, assuming the articles were published, petitioner failed to support his allegations that they actively disseminated the
details of the disbarment complaint.
In their joint Comment, PhilStar and Punay alleged that on 22 November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas, et al. went to this Court to file the disbarment
complaint but they were not able to file it on that day.9 Atty. Quinsayas, et al. were able to file the disbarment complaint the following day, or on
23 November 2010. PhilStar and Punay alleged that their news article, which was about the plan to file a disbarment complaint against petitioner,
was published on 23 November 2010. It came out before the disbarment complaint was actually filed. They alleged that the news article on the
disbarment complaint is a qualified privileged communication. They alleged that the article was a true, fair, and accurate report on the disbarment
complaint. The article was straightforward, truthful, and accurate, without any comments from the author. They alleged that Punay reported the
plan of Mangudadatu, et al. to file the disbarment complaint against petitioner as it involved public interest and he perceived it to be a
newsworthy subject. They further alleged that assuming the news article is not a privileged communication, it is covered by the protection of the
freedom of expression, speech, and of the press under the Constitution. They also alleged that the case is a criminal contempt proceeding and
intent to commit contempt of court must be shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. They further alleged that they did not commit any
contemptible act. They maintained that the news article did not impede, interfere with, or embarrass the administration of justice. They further
claimed that it is improbable, if not impossible, for the article to influence the outcome of the case or sway this Court in making its decision. The
article also did not violate petitioners right to privacy because petitioner is a public figure and the public has a legitimate interest in his doings,
affairs, and character.
Pavia died during the pendency of this case10 and was no longer included in the Comment filed for the FFFJ Trustees. Gozo resigned as member
of the FFFJ Trustees and was no longer represented by the FFFJ counsel in filing its comment.11 Gozo did not file a separate comment.

The Issue
The only issue in this case is whether respondents violated the confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings, warranting a finding of guilt for
indirect contempt of court.
The Ruling of this Court
First, the contempt charge filed by petitioner is in the nature of a criminal contempt. In People v. Godoy,12 this Court made a distinction between
criminal and civil contempt. The Court declared:
A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing
the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. On the other hand, civil contempt consists in failing to do
something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party therein and is, therefore, an offense against the
party in whose behalf the violated order is made.
A criminal contempt, being directed against the dignity and authority of the court, is an offense against organized society and, in addition, is also
held to be an offense against public justice which raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the proceedings to punish it are
punitive. On the other hand, the proceedings to punish a civil contempt are remedial and for the purpose of the preservation of the right of private
persons. It has been held that civil contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court.
It has further been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless
the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it. On the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil contempt
proceedings is remedial, the defendants intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. Hence, good faith or the absence of intent to violate the
courts order is not a defense in civil contempt.13
The records of this case showed that the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner had been published and was the subject of a
televised broadcast by respondent media groups and personalities.
We shall discuss the defenses and arguments raised by respondents.
GMA Network, Inc.
GMA Networks defense is that it has no newspaper or any publication where the article could be printed; it did not broadcast the disbarment
complaint in its television station; and that the publication was already completed when Atty. Quinsayas distributed copies of the disbarment
complaint to the media.
GMA Network did not deny that it posted the details of the disbarment complaint on its website. It merely said that it has no publication where
the article could be printed and that the news was not televised. Online posting, however, is already publication considering that it was done on
GMA Networks online news website.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.
PDI averred that it only shares its contents with Inquirer.net through a syndication. PDI attached a photocopy of the syndication page stating that
"[d]ue to syndication agreements between PDI and Inquirer.net, some articles published in PDI may not appear in Inquirer.net."14
A visit to the website describes Inquirer.net as "the official news website of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Philippines most widely circulated
broadsheet, and a member of the Inquirer Group of Companies."15 PDI was not able to fully establish that it has a separate personality from
Inquirer.net.
ABS-CBN Corporation
ABS-CBN alleged that SNN is its subsidiary and although they have interlocking directors, SNN has its own juridical personality separate from
its parent company. ABS-CBN alleged that SNN controls the line-up of shows of ANC.
We agree with ABS-CBN on this issue. We have ruled that a subsidiary has an independent and separate juridical personality distinct from that of
its parent company and that any suit against the the latter does not bind the former and vice-versa.16 A corporation is an artificial being invested
by law with a personality separate and distinct from that of other corporations to which it may be connected. 17 Hence, SNN, not ABS-CBN,
should have been made respondent in this case.
Maria Ressa

Respondent Ressa alleged that she was on terminal leave when the program about the Maguindanao Massacre was aired on ANC and that she had
no hand in its production. Ressas defense was supported by a certification from the Human Resource Account Head of ABS-CBN, stating that
Ressa went on terminal leave beginning 30 October 2010.18 This was not disputed by petitioner.
Sophia Dedace, Tetch Torres, Cecilia Victoria Orea-Drilon,
and Edu Punay
Basically, the defense of respondents Dedace, Torres, Drilon, and Punay was that the disbarment complaint was published without any comment,
in good faith and without malice; that petitioner is a public figure; that the Maguindanao Massacre is a matter of public interest; and that there
was no conspiracy on their part in publishing the disbarment complaint. They also argued that the news reports were part of privileged
communication.
In Drilons case, she further alleged that the television program was a commemoration of the Maguindanao Massacre and not solely about the
filing of the disbarment case against petitioner. Even as the disbarment complaint was briefly discussed in her program, petitioners name was not
mentioned at all in the program.
Violation of Confidentiality Rule by Respondent Media Groups and Personalities
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:
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.
The Court explained the purpose of the rule, as follows:
x x x. The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this Court to make its investigations free from any extraneous influence or interference, but
also to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and
irresponsible clients and litigants; it is also to deter the press from publishing administrative cases or portions thereto without authority. We have
ruled that malicious and unauthorized publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints against lawyers in newspapers by editors
and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature publication constitutes a contempt of court, punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or
both at the discretion of the Court. x x x19
In People v. Castelo,20 the Court ruled that contempt is akin to libel and that the principle of privileged communication may be invoked in a
contempt proceeding. The Court ruled:
While the present case involves an incident of contempt the same is akin to a case of libel for both constitute limitations upon freedom of the
press or freedom of expression guaranteed by our Constitution. So what is considered a privilege in one may likewise be considered in the other.
The same safeguard should be extended to one whether anchored in freedom of the press or freedom of expression. Therefore, this principle
regarding privileged communications can also be invoked in favor of appellant. 21
The Court recognizes that "publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom
of speech."22 As a general rule, disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this Court. In
this case, however, the filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of public concern considering that it arose from the
Maguindanao Massacre case. The interest of the public is not on petitioner himself but primarily on his involvement and participation as defense
counsel in the Maguindanao Massacre case. Indeed, the allegations in the disbarment complaint relate to petitioners supposed actions involving
the Maguindanao Massacre case.
The Maguindanao Massacre is a very high-profile case. Of the 57 victims of the massacre, 30 were journalists. It is understandable that any
matter related to the Maguindanao Massacre is considered a matter of public interest and that the personalities involved, including petitioner, are
considered as public figure. The Court explained it, thus:
But even assuming a person would not qualify as a public figure, it would not necessarily follow that he could not validly be the subject of a
public comment. For he could; for instance, if and when he would be involved in a public issue. If a matter is a subject of public or general
interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the individual did not
voluntarily choose to become involved. The publics primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant
and the content, effect and significance of the conduct, not the participants prior anonymity or notoriety. 23 (Boldface in the original)
Since the disbarment complaint is a matter of public interest, legitimate media had a right to publish such fact under freedom of the press. The
Court also recognizes that respondent media groups and personalities merely acted on a news lead they received when they reported the filing of
the disbarment complaint.

The distribution by Atty. Quinsayas to the media of the disbarment complaint, by itself, is not sufficient to absolve the media from responsibility
for violating the confidentiality rule. However, since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is representing a matter
of public concern, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner is a matter of public concern, the
media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment case as legitimate news. It would have been different if the disbarment case against
petitioner was about a private matter as the media would then be bound to respect the confidentiality provision of disbarment proceedings under
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom of the press.1wphi1 If there is a legitimate public interest, media
is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint. In the absence of a legitimate public interest in a
disbarment complaint, members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its pendency. Disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers must still remain private and confidential until their final determination.24 Only the final order of this Court shall be
published like its decisions in other cases.25
Petitioner also failed to substantiate his claim that respondent media groups and personalities acted in bad faith and that they conspired with one
another in their postings and publications of the filing of a disbarment complaint against him. Respondent media groups and personalities
reported the filing of the disbarment complaint without any comments or remarks but merely as it was a news item. Petitioner failed to prove
that respondent media groups and personalities acted with malicious intent. Respondent media groups and personalities made a fair and true news
report and appeared to have acted in good faith in publishing and posting the details of the disbarment complaint. In the televised broadcast of the
commemoration of the Maguindanao Massacre over ANC, the disbarment case was briefly discussed but petitioner was not named. There was
also no proof that respondent media groups and personalities posted and published the news to influence this Court on its action on the
disbarment case or to deliberately destroy petitioners reputation. It should also be remembered that the filing of the disbarment case against
petitioner entered the public domain without any act on the part of the media. As we will discuss later, the members of the media were given
copies of the disbarment complaint by one of the complainants.
Esmael Mangudadatu, Dennis Ayon, Nenita and Ma. Gemma Oquendo
Respondents, while admitting that they were some of the complainants in the disbarment complaint against petitioner, alleged that there was no
proof that they were the ones who disseminated the disbarment complaint. Indeed, petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation that
Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma were the ones who caused the publication of the disbarment complaint against him. There was nothing
in the records that would show that Mangudadatu, Ayon, Nenita, and Gemma distributed or had a hand in the distribution of the disbarment
complaint against petitioner.
Melinda Quintos De Jesus, Reynaldo Hulog, Redmond Batario, Malou Mangahas, and Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas
Respondents De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, Mangahas, and Atty. Quinsayas alleged that petitioner was not able to establish the posting and
publication of the articles about the disbarment complaint, and that assuming the posting and publication had been established, petitioner failed to
support his allegation that they actively disseminated the details of the disbarment complaint. They further alleged that they did not cause the
publication of the news articles and thus, they did not violate the rule on privacy and confidentiality of disbarment proceedings.
Indeed, petitioner failed to prove that, except for Atty. Quinsayas, the other respondents, namely De Jesus, Hulog, Batario, Mangahas, and even
Gozo, who did not file his separate comment, had a hand in the dissemination and publication of the disbarment complaint against him. It would
appear that only Atty. Quinsayas was responsible for the distribution of copies of the disbarment complaint. In its Comment, GMA Network
stated that the publication "had already been done and completed when copies of the complaint for disbarment were distributed by one of
the disbarment complainants, Atty. Prima Quinsayas x x x."26 Dedace also stated in her Comment that "Atty. Quinsayas gave copies of the
disbarment complaint against Atty. Fortun and she received one."27
Atty. Quinsayas is bound by Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant in the disbarment case against petitioner and as a
lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas is familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However,
instead of preserving its confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner to members of the
media which act constitutes contempt of court. In Relativo v. De Leon,28 the Court ruled that the premature disclosure by publication of the filing
and pendency of disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule. 29 In that case, Atty. Relativo, the complainant in a disbarment
case, caused the publication in newspapers of statements regarding the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings. The Court found him
guilty of contempt.
Indirect contempt against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.30 Atty. Quinsayas acted wrongly in setting aside the confidentiality rule which every lawyer and
member of the legal profession should know. Hence, we deem it proper to impose on her a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas GUILTY of indirect contempt for distributing copies of the disbarment complaint
against Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun to members of the media and we order her to pay a FINE of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
SO ORDERED.