01:28.3
Like its decisions in other cases.
01:32.5
So you will notice po na sa tatlong provisions na ito,
01:36.9
paulit-ulit na ini-emphasize ng Supreme Court na ang disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
01:42.6
are confidential in character.
01:46.3
Sa nasabing Section 1, to repeat,
01:50.4
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers shall be confidential in character and summary in nature.
01:58.3
Sa Section 44 naman,
02:00.9
Proceedings against lawyers shall be confidential.
02:05.0
Tapos sa Section 18, Rule 139B, ito naman ang nakasaad.
02:10.6
Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.
02:16.0
Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng confidential?
02:19.2
Sa Google Dictionary, the word confidential is an adjective which means intended to be kept secret.
02:26.3
Sa Merriam-Webster Online,
02:28.3
it means that it is intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class.
02:37.4
Sa Black's Law Dictionary naman,
02:40.5
the term confidential means entrusted with the confidence of another or with his secret affairs or purposes.
02:48.9
So ang meaning pala ng confidential as applied to disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
02:54.9
ay habang nakabimbin pa ang disbarment case,
02:58.3
o habang iniimbestigahan pa ito,
03:01.1
o habang wala pang lumalabas na disisyon ang Supreme Court,
03:05.4
hindi pwedeng pag-usapan ang nilalaman ng disbarment complaint
03:09.5
o ang merito nito sa public, sa social media, o sa print, radio, or broadcast media.
03:19.0
Ano ba ang rasyonale o dahilan bakit pinagbabawalan na pag-usapan ito?
03:25.0
Inexplained po ng Supreme Court in the case of Saludo Jr.
03:28.3
v. Court of Appeals,
03:30.1
at si Knight uli sa kaso ni Fortune v. Quinsayas,
03:34.5
ang rason bakit kailangan na confidential ang disbarment proceedings.
03:42.1
The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this court to make its investigations
03:47.8
free from any extraneous influence or interference,
03:51.3
but also to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges
03:57.2
from the behavior,
03:58.3
baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants.
04:04.0
It is also to deter the press from publishing administrative cases
04:09.4
or portions thereto without authority.
04:13.8
We have ruled that malicious and unauthorized publication
04:17.4
or verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints against lawyers in newspapers
04:23.0
by editors and or reporters may be actionable.
04:28.3
premature publication constitutes a contempt of court,
04:32.4
punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the court.
04:39.5
So ang dahilan pala kung bakit confidential ang disbarment proceedings ay,
04:45.9
para hindi maimpluensyahan o panghimasukan ang ginagawang imbistigasyon ng IBP o ng Supreme Court.
04:55.3
para maprotektahan ang reputasyon ng IBP,
04:58.3
na mga abogadong sinampahan ng disbarment.
05:02.9
para pigilan ang press na ipublish ang nilalaman ng disbarment case
05:07.4
ng walang pahintulot ng Korte Suprema.
05:14.4
is the confidentiality rule absolute?
05:18.6
wala bang mga exceptions o mga instances na pwedeng isapubliko ang disbarment case
05:24.2
na kinakaharap ng isang abogado?
05:28.3
Ayon mismo sa Korte Suprema,
05:31.9
Meron pong tinatawag na exceptions sa confidentiality rule.
05:51.2
If there is a legitimate public interest involved in the disbarment complaint,
05:56.3
the media is not protected.
05:58.3
prohibited from making a fair,
06:00.8
true and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint.
06:07.5
true and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint lang
06:11.1
ang pwedeng ilabas ng media.
06:14.8
dapat walang comments or remarks.
06:17.5
Bawal pa rin po i-discuss sa media
06:19.6
ang merito ng kaso,
06:21.5
like for example,
06:23.4
kung karapat dapat bang i-disbar
06:25.2
o hindi i-disbar ang isang abogado.
06:30.8
in that same case in Fortune,
06:33.6
sinabi ng Supreme Court na
06:35.1
in the absence of a legitimate public interest
06:38.0
in a disbarment complaint,
06:40.1
members of the media must preserve
06:42.3
the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings
06:45.1
during its pendency.
06:47.6
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
06:49.7
must still remain private and confidential
06:52.4
until their final determination.
06:56.7
But even for example,
06:58.1
may legitimate public interest involved
07:01.4
ang isang disbarment complaint,
07:03.7
bawal pa rin na mag-distribute ng kopya
07:06.4
ng disbarment complaint
07:07.6
gaya ng ginawa ni Atty. Quinsayas
07:10.5
in the case of Fortune v. Quinsayas et al.
07:15.2
Ito po ang sabi ng Supreme Court.
07:18.0
Atty. Quinsayas is bound by Section 18,
07:21.6
Rule 139b of the Rules of Court,
07:24.4
both as complainant in the disbarment case
07:27.1
against petitioner,
07:30.2
As a lawyer and an officer of the court,
07:32.7
Atty. Quinsayas is familiar
07:34.5
with the confidential nature
07:36.0
of disbarment proceedings.
07:38.5
However, instead of preserving
07:40.2
its confidentiality,
07:42.1
Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies
07:44.5
of the disbarment complaint against petitioner
07:46.8
to members of the media,
07:49.2
which act constitutes
07:51.1
contempt of court.
07:54.1
Ganito rin ang nangyari
07:55.3
kay Atty. Relativo
07:56.8
in the case of Relativo.
07:58.0
Relativo v. De Leon
07:59.3
when he caused the publication
08:02.7
of statements regarding
08:04.6
the filing and pendency
08:06.5
of the disbarment proceedings.
08:08.9
The court found him guilty of contempt.
08:14.1
ano ba ang example
08:15.1
ng isang disbarment complaint
08:16.8
na imbued with public interest?
08:20.3
In the case po of
08:22.0
Fortune v. Quinsayas et al.,
08:24.8
the Supreme Court said
08:25.8
that the filing of a disbarment complaint
08:28.0
against Atty. Fortune
08:29.8
is itself a matter of public concern
08:32.3
considering that it arose
08:34.6
from his involvement and participation
08:36.8
as defense counsel
08:38.3
in the Maguindanao massacre case.
08:42.3
allegedly used and abused
08:44.4
legal remedies available
08:46.0
and allowed under the rules,
08:48.5
muddled the issues,
08:49.7
and diverted the attention away
08:51.5
from the main subject matter of the cases.
08:55.5
Atty. Fortune diminished,
08:58.0
the public confidence in the law
08:59.9
and the legal profession
09:01.2
rendering him unfit to be called
09:03.7
a member of the bar.
09:06.0
Yan po ay ayon sa complaint,
09:08.0
sa disbarment complaint na ifinay laban sa kanya.
09:12.6
according to the Supreme Court,
09:14.5
imbued with public interest
09:16.2
ang disbarment complaint
09:17.8
laban kay Fortune dahil
09:20.4
may connection ito sa
09:22.2
pagiging defense counsel niya
09:24.3
in the Maguindanao massacre case.
09:28.0
we now go to the second exception.
09:31.6
Ano ba itong second exception?
09:34.4
It will not violate
09:36.4
the confidentiality rule
09:38.0
if a lawyer was merely compelled
09:40.2
to attach the disbarment complaint
09:42.1
as part of his client's answer
09:44.8
in order to establish motive.
09:48.6
to show that the case filed
09:50.2
against his client
09:51.2
was merely the opposing lawyer's
09:54.7
for filing a disbarment complaint
09:58.0
This is the case po
10:00.1
of Guanzon v. Duhilio.
10:04.8
the Supreme Court said
10:06.0
that Atty. Duhilio is not
10:08.1
liable for violation of the
10:10.0
Code of Professional Responsibility
10:11.9
and the rules of court
10:13.3
on confidentiality of disbarment proceedings.
10:18.1
Atty. Duhilio as counsel
10:20.0
merely found it necessary
10:22.2
to submit the said documents
10:24.4
yung disbarment complaint po
10:26.4
in order to defend his client.
10:29.9
Atty. Guanzon's real motive
10:32.8
in filing the civil
10:34.5
and criminal cases
10:36.2
against his client.
10:38.5
I am referring to
10:39.4
Atty. Duhilio's client.
10:44.6
Alam na natin na ang purpose
10:46.4
ng confidentiality rule is
10:48.2
para maprotektahan
10:49.8
ang reputasyon ng abogado
10:51.6
sinampahan ng disbarment.
10:53.7
Pero what if ang lawyer mismo
10:55.6
na sinampahan ng disbarment
10:57.2
ang magpapabalik?
11:10.5
ng confidentiality rule is
11:12.1
hindi lang para protektahan
11:13.9
ang reputasyon ng abogado
11:16.0
na sinampahan ng disbarment complaint.
11:18.9
Kung mas pipiliin
11:19.9
ng abogado na isa publiko
11:21.8
ang kaso niya sa social media
11:23.4
for whatever motive,
11:25.3
dapat pa rin isaalang-alang ng abogado
11:27.9
na ang layunin ng confidentiality rule
11:30.3
ay para hindi maimpluensyahan
11:32.6
o panghimasukan ng publiko
11:35.3
ang ginagawang imbistigasyon
11:37.1
ng IBP sa disbarment complaint
11:42.7
disbarment proceedings against lawyers
11:44.9
are private and confidential.
11:48.1
Tanging ang Supreme Court lamang po.
11:50.7
Pagtapos na ang imbistigasyon
11:52.4
at mayroon ng desisyon
11:53.9
ang maaaring magsapubliko
11:56.4
ng disbarment proceedings.
11:57.9
Now, ano ba ang parusa
12:01.0
pag napatunayang lumabag
12:02.8
ang kahit sino sa confidentiality rule
12:05.1
ng Supreme Court?
12:06.7
The Supreme Court po
12:08.2
can cite the person concerned
12:10.4
for indirect contempt
12:12.2
and impose on such person
12:14.6
a penalty of fine
12:16.3
not exceeding 30,000 pesos
12:20.9
not exceeding 6 months
12:22.5
or both such imprisonment
12:25.9
at the discretion of the court.
12:27.9
So, hanggang dito lang po muna tayo
12:31.4
and kung may tanong po kayo
12:33.0
please hit the comment section.
12:35.4
Maraming salamat po.
