Felix vs. Gadon

A lawyer who utters abusive, intemperate, offensive, and discriminatory language on air — including profanities directed at a deceased public figure and baseless, stigmatizing claims about HIV — violates the Canon on Propriety of the CPRA and demonstrates unfitness to remain a member of the Bar, regardless of whether the statements were made in a private or professional capacity and regardless of whether the complainant is the direct subject of the offensive statements.

Complainants Elena S. Felix and Gem A. Cabreros are Persons Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLHIV) and active advocates of PLHIV rights. Respondent Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon is a member of the Bar who appeared as a guest host and guest on radio-television programs. The case implicates the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), approved by the Court on April 11, 2023, which replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility and contains a transitory provision expressly authorizing retroactive application to pending cases. Atty. Gadon had previously been suspended in Mendoza vs. Atty. Gadon and ultimately disbarred in In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon's Viral Video Against Ms. Raissa Robles, both for abusive and scandalous utterances, and had been warned that repetition of similar acts would warrant a more severe penalty.

On June 24, 2021, news broke of the death of former President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III. That same day, Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon appeared as a guest host on DWIZ's radio-television show Karambola. During the broadcast, co-host Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles announced the developing news that the former President had been rushed to the hospital. Atty. Gadon, upon receiving information that the former President had died, uttered profanities on air, referring to the former President as "putang ina," expressing the wish that he had already died, and rejoicing with "Yehey! Hahaha" when he believed the death was confirmed. When Cruz-Angeles called for a moment of silence and respect, Atty. Gadon responded with "Respeto mo pa yang hayop na iyan" and "Rest in hell." He also labeled supporters of the former President as "mga bobong dilawan." When a cause of death was mentioned as stage 4 lung cancer, Atty. Gadon claimed on air that the former President had HIV, attributing the information to a friend who allegedly knew the Aquino family. The statements generated significant public outrage, prompting DWIZ management to issue a public apology on its Twitter page for the "inappropriate statements" made by its guest host.

Three days later, on June 27, 2021, Atty. Gadon appeared as a guest on DZRD's radio program Ang Maestro, hosted by Herman "Ka Mentong" Tiu Laurel and Anna Malindog-Uy, and was given an opportunity to explain his earlier controversial comments. Showing no remorse, Atty. Gadon admitted that his claim about the former President having HIV was merely a speculation based on the former President's physical appearance — describing him as "buto't balat" — and on the assumption that someone with access to the best medical facilities would not die of diabetes, leading him to conclude that the former President must have had HIV. He dismissed the possibility of being sued, stating that only the former President himself could file a case and that PLHIVs who wished to sue him would have to come out publicly and admit their HIV status. He also heckled and threatened PLHIVs on air, suggesting that should they proceed to file a complaint, they would be identified and subjected to embarrassment and ostracism.

On December 4, 2021, Felix and Cabreros, both PLHIVs and active advocates of PLHIV rights, filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Gadon. They alleged that his statements were not only an attempt to tarnish the former President's reputation but, more importantly, were discriminatory and exacerbated the already-rampant social stigma and discrimination against PLHIVs, sowing fear and misinformation among and about them. They claimed that the statements, taken together, showed that Atty. Gadon abused his right to freely express his opinions, in violation of Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In his Comment filed on August 2, 2022, Atty. Gadon did not deny making the subject utterances but argued that the statements were directed at the former President and not at the complainants, that they were protected expressions of personal opinion about a public figure absent actual malice, and that they were made in his private dealings rather than in his professional capacity as a lawyer.

• Discriminatory and Stigmatizing Statements: Complainants alleged that Atty. Gadon's statements were discriminatory, exacerbated the already-rampant social stigma against PLHIVs, and sowed fear and misinformation among and about PLHIVs.
• Abuse of Free Expression: Complainants claimed that the statements taken together showed that Atty. Gadon abused his right to freely express his opinions, in violation of Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Lack of Cause of Action: Atty. Gadon argued that the statements were directed at former President Aquino and not at Felix and Cabreros, who therefore were not the real parties-in-interest and had no cause of action.
• Protected Speech: Atty. Gadon maintained that the statements were expressions of personal opinion protected under the 1987 Constitution, and that as a public figure, the former President was subject to public scrutiny; absent actual malice, the complaint could not be entertained.
• Private Capacity: Atty. Gadon claimed that the statements were made in his private dealings, not in his professional dealings as a lawyer, and therefore the prohibition on abusive, offensive, or improper language did not apply.

• Fitness to Practice Law: Whether Atty. Gadon should be disbarred for his on-air statements made on June 24 and 27, 2021.
• Real Party-in-Interest: Whether the complainants' lack of direct legal interest in the subject statements bars the disbarment proceedings.
• Private vs. Professional Conduct: Whether a lawyer may be administratively disciplined for conduct committed in his private capacity.

• Fitness to Practice Law: Yes. Atty. Gadon's statements violated Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Canon II of the CPRA, constituting unlawful, dishonest, abusive, intemperate, offensive, and scandalous conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. Disbarment was warranted but could not be imposed due to his prior disbarment; a fine of PHP 150,000 was imposed instead, with the infraction recorded in his personal file.
• Real Party-in-Interest: No, the lack of a real party-in-interest does not bar disbarment proceedings. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis in nature, and the procedural requirement that only a real party-in-interest may initiate a suit does not apply; the right to institute disbarment is not confined to clients or persons who suffered injury.
• Private vs. Professional Conduct: No, a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed even in his private capacity. The higher standard of conduct expected of lawyers applies in both public and private life, and a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

• Fitness to Practice Law: The Court applied Canon II of the CPRA (Canon on Propriety), which was held to apply retroactively pursuant to its transitory provision. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Canon II prohibit unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; scandalous behavior in public or private life; creation of unsafe or hostile environments; use of abusive, intemperate, offensive, or improper language; and require observance of fairness and obedience to the law. Atty. Gadon's utterances — "putang ina yun," "hayop na iyan," "rest in hell," among others — were outright insults unrelated to the former President's official functions, made to defame rather than scrutinize. His baseless and shifting claims about the former President having HIV were false, misleading, and tainted with malice, as evidenced by the vehemence and vitriol with which he repeatedly cursed the former President and rejoiced over his death. His statements also bolstered the existing social stigma against PLHIVs and spread fear and disinformation about their condition. The Court noted that Atty. Gadon had previously been suspended in Mendoza vs. Atty. Gadon and disbarred in In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon's Viral Video Against Ms. Raissa Robles, both for abusive and scandalous utterances, and had been warned that repetition would warrant a more severe penalty. Because he had already been disbarred, Section 42, Canon VI of the CPRA was applied: the penalty of disbarment could not be reimposed but was recorded in his personal file, and a fine of PHP 150,000 was imposed pursuant to the Court's continuing power to regulate the conduct of lawyers for offenses committed prior to disbarment.

• Real Party-in-Interest: Disbarment proceedings are sui generis — neither purely civil nor purely criminal — and do not involve a trial of an action or suit but rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor; proceedings may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is the primary objective, and the real question is whether the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of the office. The procedural requirement that only a real party-in-interest must initiate a suit does not apply in disbarment cases. Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for disbarment may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the IBP upon the verified complaint of any person. The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients, nor is it necessary that the complainant suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Atty. Gadon's defense thus revealed a misappreciation of the concept of disbarment as a disciplinary mechanism.

• Private vs. Professional Conduct: The higher standard of conduct expected of lawyers applies in both public and private life. A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity when those acts tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. A lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Misconduct in private affairs does not excuse a lawyer from administrative liability, as a good character is an essential qualification for admission to and continuance in the practice of law. Moreover, in both radio appearances, Atty. Gadon was introduced as a lawyer and represented himself as such, even giving legal opinions on the matters discussed on air. There was no denying that he was acting as a lawyer when he made the questioned statements.

• Sui Generis Nature of Disbarment Proceedings — Disbarment proceedings are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they are investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor, and proceedings may be initiated by the Court motu proprio or by the IBP upon the verified complaint of any person. The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients, nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury. Public interest is the primary objective, and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. Applied here to reject Atty. Gadon's defense that the complainants were not real parties-in-interest.

• Lawyer's Conduct in Private Life — A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity when those acts tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Applied here to reject Atty. Gadon's defense that his statements were made in a private capacity and therefore beyond the Court's disciplinary reach.

• Dignified Language Requirement — Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. Applied here to condemn Atty. Gadon's profanities and abusive language on air.

• Penalty When Respondent Has Been Previously Disbarred (CPRA Section 42, Canon VI) — When a respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine or order the disbarred lawyer to return money or property to the client. If the new charge deserves disbarment or suspension, it shall not be imposed but shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer. In the event the disbarred lawyer applies for judicial clemency, the penalty so recorded shall be considered. Applied here to impose a fine of PHP 150,000 and record the infraction in Atty. Gadon's personal file.

• "To wish ill upon someone is not criticism, but an attack on the person to whom these words were directed. The words uttered by Atty. Gadon were not even related to former President Aquino's official functions." — This passage distinguishes legitimate public scrutiny of a public figure from outright defamation, forming part of the ratio decidendi for finding Atty. Gadon's statements unprotected and violative of the CPRA.

• "A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine that a lawyer's private conduct is subject to disciplinary scrutiny, frequently cited in subsequent legal ethics jurisprudence.

• "The argument x x x that [a] complainant [in disbarment proceedings] has no legal personality to sue is unavailing. Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified complaint of any person." — This passage articulates the rule that any person may initiate disbarment proceedings, a key principle in the sui generis nature of disbarment.

• Spouses Nuezca vs. Atty. Villagarcia, 792 Phil. 535 (2016) — Followed for the doctrine that a lawyer's language, though forceful and emphatic, must always be dignified and respectful, and that intemperate language has no place in the legal profession.

• Mendoza vs. Atty. Gadon, A.C. No. 11810 (Resolution, August 19, 2019) — Cited as a prior administrative case where Atty. Gadon was suspended for three months for using abusive and intemperate language against a fellow lawyer, with a warning that repetition would warrant a more severe penalty.

• In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon's Viral Video Against Ms. Raissa Robles, A.C. No. 13521, June 27, 2023 — Cited as the case in which Atty. Gadon was ultimately disbarred for hurling profane expletives and curses against journalist Raissa Robles, which precluded the reimposition of disbarment in the present case and triggered the application of Section 42, Canon VI of the CPRA.

• Gonzalez vs. Atty. Alcaraz, 534 Phil. 471 (2006) — Followed for the doctrines that disbarment proceedings are sui generis and that lawyers may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct committed in their private capacity.

• Mejares vs. Atty. Romana, 469 Phil. 619 (2004) — Followed for the rule that the procedural requirement of a real party-in-interest does not apply in disbarment cases and that any person may file a verified complaint.

• Valin vs. Atty. Ruiz, 820 Phil. 390 (2017) — Followed for the doctrine that a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

• Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra, 801 Phil. 570 (2016) — Followed for the principle that lawyers may be disciplined for conduct in their private capacity when it reflects want of probity or good demeanor.

• Valmonte vs. Atty. Quesada, 867 Phil. 247 — Followed for the rule that the Court may impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer found to have committed an offense prior to disbarment, as the Court does not lose jurisdiction over offenses committed while the lawyer was still a member of the profession.

• Section 1, Rule 139 of the Rules of Court — Governs the filing of administrative complaints for disbarment. Applied as the procedural basis for the complaint filed by Felix and Cabreros.

• Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court — Provides that proceedings for disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the IBP upon the verified complaint of any person. Applied to reject the defense of lack of real party-in-interest.

• CPRA, Section 1, Transitory Provision (General Provisions) — Provides that the CPRA shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except where retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice. Applied to justify the CPRA's application to this case despite the subject statements and complaint predating its approval.

• CPRA, Canon II, Section 1 (Proper Conduct) — Prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to Atty. Gadon's false and misleading statements about the former President's health.

• CPRA, Canon II, Section 2 (Dignified Conduct) — Prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law and scandalous behavior in public or private life to the discredit of the legal profession. Applied to Atty. Gadon's profanities and rejoicing over the former President's death.

• CPRA, Canon II, Section 3 (Safe Environment; Avoid All Forms of Abuse or Harassment) — Prohibits creating or promoting an unsafe or hostile environment and any form of psychological abuse, violence, or discrimination. Applied to Atty. Gadon's stigmatizing statements about PLHIVs and his on-air threats against them.

• CPRA, Canon II, Section 4 (Use of Dignified, Gender-Fair, and Child- and Culturally-Sensitive Language) — Prohibits abusive, intemperate, offensive, or improper language, whether oral or written, through traditional or electronic means, including mass or social media. Applied to Atty. Gadon's profane and offensive on-air utterances.

• CPRA, Canon II, Section 5 (Observance of Fairness and Obedience) — Requires lawyers to insist on observance of fairness and obedience to the law in every personal and professional engagement. Applied as part of the cumulative finding of CPRA violations.

• CPRA, Section 42, Canon VI (Penalty When the Respondent Has Been Previously Disbarred) — Provides that when a respondent has been previously disbarred and is found guilty of a new charge, disbarment or suspension shall not be imposed but shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer, and a fine may be imposed. Applied to impose a fine of PHP 150,000 and record the infraction in Atty. Gadon's personal file.

Gesmundo, C.J.; Leonen, SAJ.; Hernando; Lazaro-Javier; Inting; Zalameda; M. Lopez; Gaerlan; Rosario; J. Lopez; Dimaampao; Marquez; Kho, Jr.; and Singh, JJ., concurred.