Zaldivar v. Gonzalez FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique.

He was charged
before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Gonzalez was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar filed
before the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases. The Supreme
Court rendered decision in favor of Zaldivar and ordered Gonzalez to cease and
desist from investigating. Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and
he filed criminal information against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper
interview where he stated that the rich and influential persons get favorable
actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get
his petition to be given due course. Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt
against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side.
After hearing his side, the Supreme Court held that Gonzalez is guilty of contempt of
court. Gonzalez counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising the following
issues: ISSUE/S: 1. WON the Supreme Court erred in charging Gonzalez with indirect
contempt and convicting him of direct contempt 2. WON the Supreme Court erred to
charge Gonzalez under Rule 139 (b) and not 139 of the Revised Rules of Court 3.
WON the Supreme Court erred in applying the visible tendency rule rather than the
clear and present danger rule in disciplinary and contempt charges 4. WON the
Supreme Court erred in holding that intent is irrelevant in charges of misconduct 5.
WON the Supreme Court erred in punishing Gonzalez for contempt for out of court
publications 6. WON the imposition of indefinite suspension against Gonzalez
constitutes cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment. HELD (In its entirety, Motion
for Reconsideration was denied) 1. No. The SC held that Gonzalez is guilty of both
contempt of court in facie curiae and gross misconduct as an officer of the court
and member of the bar. The word in facie curiae is not equivalent of direct
contempt. Rather, the court used the term to signify a frontal assault upon the
integrity of the Court and the entire judicial system. The SC also noted that it did
not impose punishment for Gonzalez acts under direct contempt. 2. No. Rules 139
talks about the referral of SC to IBP or OSG while Rule 139(b) states that reference
to IBP and/or OSG is not mandatory. The SC did not err in not referring the case to
IBP or OSG. The SC held that there is no need to refer the case to the OSG because
the Court itself has initiated the case against Gonzalez. In addition to this, the SC
said that there is no need for further investigation of facts in the present case
because it was not disputed by Gonzalez that he uttered or wrote certain
statements attributed to him. 3. No. The SC explained that the visible tendency
rule penalizes any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct or
degrade the administration of justice while the clear and present danger rule is a
method of marking out the appropriate limits of freedom of speech and of assembly
in certain contexts. The SC held that the clear and present danger test is not the
only test which is recognized and is applicable to courts. Also, invoking this test
would not dissolve the problem because the statements made by Gonzalez are of
such nature as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. Hence, visible
tendency rule and not clear and present danger shall be applied.

4. No. The SC explained that human intent can only be shown by examining ones
acts and statements. Gonzalez disclaimer of intent to attack the Court cannot
prevail over the plain import of what he did say and do. Gonzalez cannot negate the
clear import of his acts and statements by simply pleading a secret intent or state
of mind incompatible with his acts or statements. 5. No. Respondents counsel
asked the SC to follow what he presented as alleged modern trends in UK and US
concerning the law of contempt. The SC held that the text he cites is not applicable
in Philippine courts. 6. No. Indefinite suspension has the effect of placing the key to
the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands. The
sanction has the effect of giving Gonzalez the chance to purge himself in his own
good time.