Garrido v. Gadon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case arose from a disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Wilfredo Garrido, Jr. against Atty. Lorenzo Gadon. The complaint alleged that Gadon engaged in falsehoods in an impeachment complaint he filed against then-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and that he filed baseless criminal cases against Supreme Court employees. Specifically, the impeachment complaint accused Sereno of falsifying a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and of instructing court officials not to issue warrants of arrest against Senator Leila De Lima. Gadon's verification of the impeachment complaint stated the allegations were based on personal knowledge or authentic documents. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) investigated the complaint. The IBP-CBD found that Gadon's accusation regarding the falsified TRO was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge or authentic records, and recommended a two-year suspension. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) modified this, recommending a three-year suspension, noting recidivism and prior offenses. The Supreme Court reviewed these recommendations. The Petition: The Supreme Court found that Gadon committed perjury in the verification of his impeachment complaint, as his accusation of falsifying a TRO was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge or authentic records, as he had sworn. The Court also found that the charge of filing baseless cases was unsubstantiated. Considering Gadon's prior disbarment and other infractions, the Court found the IBP-BOG's recommended penalty insufficient. The Court imposed a fine of PHP 150,000.00 and declared Gadon ineligible for judicial clemency, noting that while disbarment was warranted, it could not be imposed anew due to his prior disbarment.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon committed perjury in the verification of his impeachment complaint against then Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. Whether Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon engaged in gross misconduct. What is the appropriate penalty for Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon's transgressions, considering his prior disbarment and repeat offense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon GUILTY of Gross Misconduct. While the offense warrants disbarment, the Court noted that Gadon had already been disbarred in a previous case. Therefore, the penalty of disbarment shall not be imposed anew but shall be recorded in his personal file. Accordingly, the Court imposed a FINE of PHP 150,000.00 against Gadon, payable within three months, and declared him INELIGIBLE FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of perjury in the verification of the impeachment complaint: The Court affirmed the IBP-CBD's finding that Gadon committed perjury. During a House Committee on Justice hearing, Gadon admitted that his allegation regarding then Chief Justice Sereno falsifying a TRO was not based on his personal knowledge or authentic records, but rather on hearsay from a journalist and secondary sources. He had sworn in the verification of his impeachment complaint that the allegations were true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. This admission directly contradicted his sworn statement, constituting perjury. On the issue of gross misconduct: The Court found Gadon guilty of Gross Misconduct. His act of making an accusation based on hearsay and committing perjury in his verification violated Section 11 of Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). The Court defined Gross Misconduct as inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct, generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose. Gadon acted in bad faith, knowing his accusation lacked personal knowledge or supporting evidence, yet he included it in a verified complaint, deceiving the House of Representatives and intending to harm Sereno's reputation. This demonstrated a malicious intent to malign and defame, showing moral depravity and a disregard for procedural norms. On the appropriate penalty: The Court determined that the IBP-BOG's recommended penalty of three years' suspension was not commensurate with Gadon's misconduct, especially considering aggravating circumstances. Gadon was a repeat offender, having been previously disbarred in In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon's Viral Video Against Raissa Robles and fined in Felix v. Gadon. He also showed a lack of remorse, brazenly asserting that Republic v. Sereno substantiated his claims. Given these factors, the Court found that Gadon deserved disbarment. However, pursuant to Canon VI, Section 42 of the CPRA, since he was already disbarred, the penalty of disbarment could not be imposed anew but would be recorded in his personal file. The Court exercised its power to regulate the conduct of lawyers prior to disbarment by imposing a fine of PHP 150,000.00. Furthermore, due to his earlier disbarment and being a repeat offender, Gadon was declared ineligible for judicial clemency, as established in Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite v. Atty. Mas.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who commits perjury in a verified impeachment complaint by making allegations not based on personal knowledge or authentic records violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, constituting Gross Misconduct. Despite a prior disbarment, the Court can impose a fine and declare the lawyer ineligible for judicial clemency, as the offense warrants disbarment but cannot be imposed anew.