ABS-CBN Corporation vs Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr.

G.R. No. 227004 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Rule 71; Contempt of Court – Material Allegations in a Petition for Contempt

Legal Ethics – CPRA; Propriety – Sub Judice Rule – Restrictions Against Lawyers

In 2010, Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. was charged with multiple murder for the death of 57 individuals in what was known as the Maguindanao Massacre. While the cases were pending, ABS-CBN aired an interview conducted by reporter Jorge Cariño with Lakmodin Saliao. In the interview, Saliao stated that he was a former helper of the Ampatuans and that he was present when the Ampatuans were planning the mass murder. He implicated Andal and other members of the Ampatuan family.

After the interview was aired, Andal filed a petition for indirect contempt against ABS-CBN and Jorge Cariño. Andal claimed that the interview was calculated to interfere with court proceedings to serve Saliao’s own interest without passing through the scrutiny of the police or the National Prosecution Service if it indeed is to form part of or used as evidence in the murder cases.

ABS-CBN and Cariño eventually submitted the case for resolution without presenting any evidence as they claimed that the petition by Andal should be out rightly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled against ABS-CBN. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Andal’s petition for indirect contempt should be dismissed.

HELD: Yes. The petition for indirect contempt failed to state a cause of action.

A violation of the sub judice rule is indirect contempt. It is treated as “improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”

A petition for indirect contempt is sufficient if the following are properly alleged:

1. First, public statements were made regarding the merits of the case while it is pending before the courts. The petition must clearly state the contemptible conduct and reproduce the content of the speech ought to be punished;

2. Second, since intent is necessary in criminal contempt, the required mental element of the speaker who uttered the contemptuous speech in a judicial proceeding must be specifically alleged. It must appear from the story that the “ultimate purpose” of its publication is to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. This is inferred from the totality of the story, the context of its publication, the wording used, the manner of reporting, and other relevant factors which may be derived from the story;

3. Third, the clear and present danger of the utterance to the court’s administration of justice must be alleged, specifically identifying the importance and saliency of the information on the ability of courts to make an impartial decision. There must be a showing of the serious and imminent threat of an utterance on the court’s administration of justice for it to be subject to subsequent punishment; and

4. Finally, the effect of the speech on the administration of justice must be shown, particularly, that the utterance will influence the court’s independence in ruling on a case, which will, in turn, affect public confidence in the Judiciary.

The petition filed by Andal did not meet the second and third required allegations.

The second required allegation pertains to the relevant mental element. Here, it is the reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the story since the participants being held liable are members of the press. Since it is Andal’s burden to prove the existence of actual malice or the deliberate or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement, it must first be alleged in the Petition for Indirect Contempt.

Anent the third requirement, there was no sufficient allegation of the clear and present danger of the interview and its broadcast. The Petition states that Saliao created a false story that ABS-CBN disseminated to the public, generating a negative impression against Andal in the murder cases. Andal alleges that this sentiment will eventually find its way into the psyche of the judge, serving as an extraneous influence and affecting the outcome of the murder cases. However, it fails to allege its imminence as regards the court’s administration of justice. The eventuality is insufficient to show the imminence level required to satisfy the clear and present danger test. It is settled that “publicity does not, in and of itself, impair court proceedings.”

In this case, the SC also elucidated on the sub judice rule as applied to lawyers.

Speech in relation to pending cases

The SC emphasized that lawyers and litigants, by their proximity to the courts and judges, are individuals who are in the best position to make criticisms. To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts and judges is to seal the lips of those in the best position to give advice and who might consider it their duty, to speak disparagingly. Litigants and their counsels who choose to speak publicly may not be punished if their speech is limited to a fair and true commentary of the proceedings, provided, however, that public discussion was made in good faith and in furtherance of public interest. Counsels, owing to their duty of fidelity to the courts, must clearly provide the necessity of the utterance. Hence, the following must be observed by lawyers and litigants:

1. Lawyers can criticize the courts. However, the exercise of their freedom of speech as citizens is burdened by their responsibilities as officers of the court. Their criticism must be legitimate, and must support the administration of justice;

2. Counsels are responsible for advising their clients that in choosing the courts’ forum, they are not allowed to attack the integrity of the courts unless they have actual proof that can sustain a disciplinary action; and

3. Some cases are more public than others, owing to the public interest involved. A fair and true reporting of a matter relating to a pending case will not amount to a violation of the sub judice rule. Lawyers should also explain the arguments of the other party to give the public a balanced understanding of the case without editorializing. Comments or predictions as to how the courts will rule are not allowed.

Speech in relation to a lawyer’s public commentary in general

Lawyers are officers of the court. Even if they are not representing clients in court, their public speech as regards the Judiciary are limited by their oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The SC’s disciplinary authority is broader than its contempt powers. In their public commentaries, lawyers must be careful not to exceed the limits of fair comment and criticism. Lawyers cannot give an opinion on the services given by other lawyers in representing their clients as part of their duty to give courtesy, fairness, and candor to their colleagues. They also cannot predict how the court will rule in a particular case.

Read full text.