Atty. Emiliano Jurado labels himself as a columnist who incidentally happens to be a lawyer. He writes for the Manila Standard. From 1992 to 1993, he wrote several scathing columns against the judiciary, its justices, its judges, and its employees.
In August 1992, the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision in PLDT vs Eastern Telephone (G.R. No. 94374) in which the winning party was PLDT. The Decision was written by Justice Hugo Gutierrez, Jr.
In January 1993, local newspapers published an assessment by a linguistics expert which alleged that a scrutiny of the writing style employed in the PLDT Decision and of the writing style of the PLDT counsel would reveal that the PLDT Decision appeared to have been written by the PLDT counsel and not Justice Hugo; that the lawyer of PLDT was Justice Hugo’s ghostwriter.
Subsequently, Atty. Jurado wrote a column titled Who will judge the Justices? where he stated “six justices, their spouses, children and grandchildren (a total of 36 persons) spent a vacation in Hong Kong some time last year — and that luxurious hotel accommodations and all their other expenses were paid by a public utility firm . . . and that the trip . . . was arranged by the travel agency patronized by this public utility firm.”
This caused an uproar because though Atty. Jurado did not mention names, it was obvious at that time that the justices referred were justices of the Supreme Court and that public utility firm referred to in his article was PLDT. Atty. Jurado was making it appear that PLDT bribed Supreme Court justices.
The lawyer of PLDT wrote the Supreme Court. The lawyer offered evidence that PLDT made no such expense and that the travel firms connected to PLDT made no expense in relation to the travels of the justices or their families.
The Supreme Court then created a committee to investigate Atty. Jurado’s allegations (among others). Atty. Jurado was invited to assist the committee in its investigations, particularly, to provide solid evidence to prove his allegations but Atty. Jurado did nothing. He merely commented that his columns were self-explanatory and that they reflect the general sentiment of the people.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Jurado is administratively liable.
HELD: Yes. He was cited in contempt. He was fined Php1,000.00.
Contempt is punishable, even if committed without relation to a pending case. Atty. Jurado’s columns were concluded to be fabrications. When the lawyer of PLDT had presented evidence to disprove Atty. Jurado’s columns, it became incumbent upon Atty. Jurado to prove his assertions but he did nothing.
SIDE ISSUE: Is Atty. Jurado protected by free speech?
HELD: No. False reports about a public official or other person are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. Even the most liberal view of free speech has never countenanced the publication of falsehoods, especially the persistent and unmitigated dissemination of patent lies. Jurado’s actuations, in the context in which they were done, demonstrate gross irresponsibility, and indifference to factual accuracy and the injury that he might cause to the name and reputation of those of whom he wrote. They constitute contempt of court, directly tending as they do to degrade or abase the administration of justice and the judges engaged in that function.
