i. Palad vs Solis

G.R. No. 206691, October 03, 2016 ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD, PALAD , Petitioner , Petitioner , v. LOLIT SOLIS, SALVE V. ASIS, AL G. PEDRO!E AND RIARDO ". LO, Respondents. Respondents . Before this Court is a petition to cite respondents Lolit Solis ( Solis), Solis), Salve V. Asis ( Asis),  Asis), AI G. Pedroche (Pedroche (Pedroche), ), and Ricardo . Lo (La ( La)) for indirect conte!pt for pu"lishin# articles on the petitioner Att$. Ra$!und P. Palad%s suspension, &hich &as su"'ect of a pendin# ad!inistrative case. he facts follo&. n *ece!"er +, -+-, the Board of Governors of the Inte#rated Bar of the Philippines ( IBP ) issued a Resolution in CB* Case /o. 01-02, reco!!endin# the penalt$ of suspension of herein petitioner pet itioner Att$. Ra$!und P. Palad. + Pal ad received a cop$ of the Resolution on 3arch 2, -+4, and filed his 3otion for Reconsideration. Petitioner averred that around 564 in the !ornin# on April -4, -+4, he received a te7t !essa#e fro! his fello& la&$er friends infor!in# hi! that the latter read in an article in Filipino Star Ngayon that petitioner &as alread$ suspended fro! the practice of la& for one (+) $ear. he article &as &ritten "$ respondent Solis in her colu!n 8a9e it, a9e it8, &hich &as also pu"lished on the ta"loid%s &e"site. An e7cerpt of the article reads6 chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$ *ahil sa pa#la"a# sa code of professional responsi"ilit$  ABGA*  ABGA* /I :ARI/A :ARI/A ;ALILI S Sisi9apin n# Startal9 staff na 9unin an# pani# ni Att$. ?Ra$!und@ Palad, an# le#al counsel ni :atrina ;alili sa 9aso na isasa!pa nito la"an 9a$ ;a$den :ho, r. 3a$ "alita 9asi na na9aratin# sa Startal9 na suspendido si Att$. Palad sa practice of la& dahil lu!a"a# si$a sa code of professional responsi"ilit$ n# !#a la&$er. *iu!ano, isan# taon an# suspension ni Att$. Palad dahil sa !#a salita na "inita&an ni$a la"an sa Belo 3edical Clinic. ;indi ra& na#1verif$ si Att$. Palad tun#9ol sa 9aso na &alan# 9inala!an an# 9lini9a ni *r. Vic9i Belo. Su9i n# Startal9 si Att$. Palad, ato na noon# 9ainitan n# 9aso nina :atrina at ;a$den. :arapatan ni$a na !a#salita at !a#pali&ana# para !a"i#$an#1lina& an# is$u na 9inasasan#9utan ni$a n#a$on.  Apat na taon na an# na9alilipas na9alilipas !ula nan# pu!uto9 pu!uto9 an# an# se7 video video scandal scandal nina :atrina :atrina at ;a$den.  An# a9ala a9ala n# Iahat Iahat a$ tapos tapos na an# an# is$u dahil dahil na#la"as na#la"as na n# dcsis$on an# an# 9orte pero hindi hindi pa pala dahil sa "a#on# is$u na na#sasan#9ot sa pan#alan ni Att$. ?Ra$!und@ Palad. 7777 Pipilitin din n# Startal9 staff na hin#in an# pani# nina :atrina at ;a$den tun#9ol sa alle#ed suspension ni Att$. Palad. 7777 :un# totoo !an na suspended si Att$. Palad, pareho na lan# sila n# 9apalaran ni ;a$den na "ina&ian na!an n# !edical license n# Professional Re#ulation Co!!ission (PRC). 7 7 764 Petitioner also alle#ed that respondent Lo "roached the sa!e topic in his colu!n unfare in he Philippine Star on April-4, -+4, thus6

chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$ #$%t&' ()* •

Could it "e true that the la&$er Ra$!und Palad, the cot!sel of :atrina ;alili (in the case she filed a#ainst ;a$den :ho &ho &as cleared "$ the court), &as suspended fro! the practice of la& "ecause of several actions that &ere dee!ed inconsistent &ith the la&$ers% code of professional responsi"ilit$, includin# !a9in# irresponsi"le pu"lic state!ents a#ainst the Belo 3edical Clinic &ithout verif$in# his reports and !a9in# pu"lic state!ents re#ardin# a pendin# case of &hich unfare sources said that la&$er Palad has filed a !otion for reconsideration &hich is a&aitin# resolution. 

Petitioner avo&ed that respondents clearl$ violated the confidentialit$ rule in proceedin#s a#ainst attorne$s as provided "$ Rule +401B of the Rules of Court &hen the$ disclosed the pendin# ad!inistrative case to the pu"lic and are, li9e&ise, lia"le for indirect conte!pt since the$ !ade co!!ents, opinions and conclusions as to the findin#s of the IBP Board of Governors re#ardin# the ad!inistrative case a#ainst hi!. In their oint Co!!ent, respondent Solis alle#ed that she has "een an entertain!ent 'ournalist for fort$ () $ears &ho &rites a"out an$thin# that pertains to "oth local and international entertain!ent industr$, includin#, a!on# others, ne&s a"out local and international cele"rities and personalities &ho are associated &ith the!. n the other hand, respondent Asis contended that she has "een the editor of  Pilipino Star Ngayon's Sho&"i section for four $ears. As editor, she edits the articles su"!itted to the entertain!ent section "$ the entertain!ent colu!nists "efore the$ are pu"lished, "ut she has no control or discretion over the topics that the colu!nists &rite. or his part, respondent Pedroche narrated that as the =ditor1in1Chief, he is in char#e of the overall preparation of the ne&spaper, and deter!ines &hich ne&s to "e pu"lished "$ the order of their national si#nificance. ;o&ever, the editors of other se#!ents, such as sho&"i, have autono!$ to decide &hich article to use. 3ean&hile, respondent Lo averred that he has "een an entertain!ent 'ournalist for al!ost  $ears and that he &rites the colu!n Funfare in the entertain!ent section of the Philippine Star. Solis and Lo further clai!ed that so!eti!e in April -+4, the$ received infor!ation fro! a relia"le source that petitioner &as reportedl$ suspended fro! the practice of la& for supposed violation of the code of ethics. he$ ar#ued that the ad!inistrative case a#ainst petitioner is a !atter of pu"lic interest "ecause he "eca!e a pu"lic fi#ure "$ #ainin# national reco#nition and notoriet$ as the ardent counsel of :atrina ;alili, &hose scandal &ith ;a$den :ho !ade headlines a fe& $ears a#o. Petitioner inevita"l$ "eca!e an overni#ht cele"rit$ la&$er due to his e7tensive !edia e7posure in defendin# his client. he issue &ith &hich petitioner &as associated as ;alili%s la&$er #enerated so !uch pu"licit$, captured the entire nation%s attention, and even led to a Senate investi#ation. As such, the$ alle#ed that their &ritin#s a"out petitioner%s suspension arc considered ualified privile#ed co!!unication, &hich is protected under the constitutional #uarantee of freedo! of the press. 3ean&hile, the ffice of the Cit$ Prosecutor of Valenuela Cit$, in a Resolution D dated une -2, -+4, dis!issed the li"el case filed "$ petitioner a#ainst Solis for lac9 of pro"a"le cause. he ele!ent of !alice is &antin# #iven that there &ere no &ild i!putations, distortions or defa!ator$ co!!ents calculated to da!a#e petitioner%s reputation &hen Solis reported in her colu!n a"out the alle#ed suspension. 5 Li9e&ise, the case a#ainst Solis, Asis and Pedroche &as also dis!issed. It held that it is plainl$ evident fro! a readin# of the article that it is "ut a !ere inuir$ of the alle#ed suspension. E he case a#ainst Lo &as also dis!issed "ecause all fair co!!entaries a"out the status and condition of the petitioner, for havin# acuired the stature of pu"lic fi#ure, "eco!e ualified privile#ed co!!unication. 2chanro"lesla& In the present petition, petitioner raises the follo&in# issues6 chanRo"lesvirtualLa&li"rar$ R=SP/*=/S VILA=* R