Garrido, Jr. vs. Gadon

A lawyer commits Gross Misconduct and violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability by making false representations under oath in a verified pleading, specifically by including an accusation in an impeachment complaint that is not based on personal knowledge or authentic documents but on mere hearsay.

The administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Wilfredo M. Garrido, Jr. against Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). The complaint sought Gadon's disbarment on two grounds: (1) engaging in falsehoods in an impeachment complaint filed before the House of Representatives against then de facto Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in August 2017, and (2) filing baseless criminal cases against several Supreme Court employees. The core factual allegation was that Gadon, in his verification, swore that the impeachment complaint's allegations were true based on his personal knowledge or authentic documents, yet during House hearings, he admitted that a central accusation regarding the falsification of a TRO was sourced from a journalist and not from personal knowledge or any document he had seen.

• Nature of the Complaint: Atty. Garrido, Jr. filed an administrative complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Gadon based on two acts: (1) making false statements under oath in an impeachment complaint, and (2) filing baseless criminal cases against Supreme Court employees.
• The Impeachment Complaint and Verification: On August 2, 2017, Gadon filed an impeachment complaint against then Chief Justice Sereno. In the attached verification, he swore under oath that the allegations were "true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic documents."
• The Hearsay Admission: During a hearing of the House Committee on Justice on November 22, 2017, Gadon admitted under questioning that a key allegation—that Chief Justice Sereno falsified a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in G.R. Nos. 206844-45—was not based on his personal knowledge. He stated he first read it in a newspaper and was told by reporter Jomar Canlas. He admitted he had not seen the alleged "draft TRO" or the "blanket TRO" and that his source was secondary.
• Denials by Sources: Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro issued a statement denying Gadon's claim. Reporter Jomar Canlas also denied under oath that Justice De Castro was his source or that he disclosed such to Gadon.
• Gadon's Defense: In his answer and position paper before the IBP, Gadon argued the complaint was vague and unsubstantiated, that Garrido, Jr. lacked personal knowledge, and that the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Republic v. Sereno (which ousted Sereno via quo warranto for failure to file SALNs) proved his allegations were "basically true."
• IBP Findings: The IBP-CBD found Gadon committed perjury in his verification based on the hearsay admission. It did not find sufficient evidence to support the charge of filing baseless criminal cases. The IBP-BOG modified the penalty upward to a three-year suspension due to aggravating circumstances.
• Supreme Court's Independent Assessment: The Court agreed with the IBP-CBD's finding of perjury. It rejected Gadon's defense that Republic v. Sereno exculpated him, clarifying that the quo warranto case did not adjudicate the falsification of a TRO and that its references to congressional hearings were not final findings of fact.

• Basis of the Complaint: Complainant Garrido, Jr. argued that Gadon knowingly executed a false verification by including an allegation (TRO falsification) that he knew was not based on his personal knowledge or authentic documents, but on hearsay.
• Campaign of Harassment: Garrido, Jr. contended that Gadon's threats and subsequent filing of criminal cases against Supreme Court officials, motivated by Chief Justice Sereno's refusal to resign, constituted the filing of baseless suits.

• Lack of Personal Knowledge by Complainant: Gadon countered that Garrido, Jr. did not have personal knowledge of the accusations, as he was not present at the impeachment hearings.
• Mootness: Gadon argued the acts related to the impeachment were moot and academic following Sereno's ouster as Chief Justice.
• Truth of Allegations: Gadon maintained that the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v. Sereno proved the statements in his impeachment complaint were "basically true," thereby justifying his actions.
• Insufficient Evidence: Gadon asserted there was no evidence to support the disbarment charges, characterizing them as mere assertions and conjectures.

• Perjury in Verification: Whether Gadon committed perjury and violated ethical rules by making a false verification in his impeachment complaint, where he swore allegations were based on personal knowledge or authentic documents when one key allegation was admittedly based on hearsay.
• Filing of Baseless Cases: Whether Gadon's act of filing criminal cases against Supreme Court officials constituted the filing of baseless or frivolous suits warranting disciplinary action.

• Perjury in Verification: Gadon committed Gross Misconduct. The verification requirement is not an empty ritual. By swearing that an allegation was based on personal knowledge or authentic records when it was admittedly based on hearsay from a journalist, Gadon made a false representation under oath. This act deceived the House of Representatives, showed bad faith and intent to malign, and demonstrated a propensity to disregard procedural norms for personal agenda. It violated Section 11, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
• Filing of Baseless Cases: The charge was not substantiated. While Gadon threatened and filed cases, the complainant only presented news articles. By themselves, these did not prove the filed cases were, in fact, baseless or frivolous. The evidence on record was insufficient to support this charge.

• Verification as a Substantial Requirement — A verification is not a mere formality but a sworn attestation that ensures the good faith and truthfulness of a pleading's allegations. Making a false verification constitutes perjury and unethical conduct. The Court emphasized that its import "must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice."
• Gross Misconduct under the CPRA — Gross Misconduct is defined as any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct prejudicial to the rights of parties or the proper administration of justice, motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose. It is distinguished from Simple Misconduct by the presence of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. It is classified as a Serious Offense under the CPRA.
• Penalty for a Previously Disbarred Lawyer — When a lawyer who has already been disbarred is found guilty of a new offense that warrants disbarment, the new penalty of disbarment cannot be imposed but shall be recorded in the lawyer's personal file. However, the Court retains the power to impose a fine for offenses committed prior to disbarment.

• "Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative." (Citing Park v. Choi)
• "Gadon's cavalier approach towards the verification requirement in impeachment complaints—a requirement demanded by the Constitution no less—demonstrative of a propensity to disregard procedural norms in pursuit of one's own personal agenda."
• "Gadon's repeated serious infractions of the CPRA betray his utter lack of respect—if not understanding—of the ethical standards demanded by the legal profession. Under the circumstances, and by case law Gadon may be deemed to have forfeited his right to re-enter the profession whose norms he had repeatedly shown contempt for."

• Republic v. Sereno, 831 Phil. 271 (2018) — Distinguished. This was a quo warranto petition that ousted Sereno for failure to prove integrity during her nomination via non-filing of SALNs. The Court clarified it did not adjudicate the truth of the TRO falsification allegation, and references to congressional hearings were not final findings of fact. It was therefore not exculpatory for Gadon.
• Park v. Choi, 544 Phil. 431 (2007) — Cited to emphasize the substantial importance of a verification in a pleading.
• Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, 468 Phil. 329 (2004) — Cited for the definition of Gross Misconduct.
• Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon, 848 Phil. 277 (2019) — Cited to distinguish Gross Misconduct from Simple Misconduct.
• Felix v. Gadon, A.C. No. 13253 (2024) and In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon's Viral Video Against Raissa Robles, A.C. No. 13521 (2023) — Cited as evidence of Gadon's status as a repeat offender, the latter being a prior disbarment case.
• Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite v. Atty. Mas, A.C. No. 8219 (2023) — Followed. This case established the precedent for declaring a previously disbarred, repeat offender ineligible for judicial clemency.

• Section 11, Canon II, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — Prohibits lawyers from making false representations or statements and requires them to correct false or inaccurate statements in pleadings. The Court found Gadon violated this by making a false verification.
• Section 33(a), Canon VI, CPRA — Classifies Gross Misconduct as a Serious Offense.
• Section 37, Canon VI, CPRA — Prescribes the penalties for Serious Offenses, including disbarment and suspension.
• Section 38(b)(1), Canon VI, CPRA — Lists "recidivism" or being a repeat offender as an aggravating circumstance.
• Section 39, Canon VI, CPRA — Provides for the manner of imposition of penalties based on the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
• Section 42, Canon VI, CPRA — Governs the penalty when the respondent has been previously disbarred, allowing for a fine and recording of the new penalty in the lawyer's personal file.
• Article XI, Section 3(2), 1987 Constitution — Cited as the constitutional basis for the verification requirement in impeachment complaints.

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