Felix & Cabreros v. Gadon

On June 24, 2021, as news broke of the death of former President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III, Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon, guest-hosting DWIZ's radio-television show Karambola, called the former President "putang ina," said "Ay, patay na nga. Yehey! Hahaha," "Rest in hell," and claimed he had HIV, citing a friend who knew the Aquinos. DWIZ publicly apologized. On June 27, 2021, on DZRD's Ang Maestro, Gadon admitted he had merely speculated about HIV from the former President's appearance, and said that anyone wishing to sue would have to "resurrect Noynoy from his ashes." He also taunted persons living with HIV who might sue, saying they would have to come out in the open. Elena S. Felix and Gem A. Cabreros, persons living with HIV and advocates for their rights, filed a disbarment complaint. Gadon admitted the statements but argued that the complainants were not real parties-in-interest, that his statements were protected opinion about a public figure made without actual malice, and that they were made in his private capacity.

1. 1Whether Atty. Gadon should be disbarred for his on-air statements
2. 2Whether complainants who were not the target of the statements may bring the complaint
3. 3Whether a lawyer may be disciplined for statements made in a private capacity

Gadon was found unfit to remain a lawyer. The CPRA applied retroactively under its transitory provision to "all pending and future cases." His statements violated Canon II (Propriety): Sections 1 (proper conduct), 2 (dignified conduct), 3 (safe environment; no abuse, harassment or discrimination), 4 (dignified, gender-fair, culturally sensitive language), and 5 (fairness). The statements were not criticism: "To wish ill upon someone is not criticism, but an attack on the person to whom these words were directed." The HIV claim was false, baseless, malicious and fed stigma against persons living with HIV. Citing Gonzalez v. Alcaraz (which quotes In re Almacen) and Mejares v. Romana, the Court held that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, so lack of a real party-in-interest is no defense; any person may file. Citing Valin v. Ruiz and Belo-Henares v. Guevarra, it held that lawyers may be disciplined for private conduct, and noted that Gadon was introduced as a lawyer and gave legal opinions on air. His prior suspension in Mendoza v. Gadon and his disbarment in A.C. No. 13521, both for abusive utterances, showed he ignored earlier warnings. Because he was already disbarred, Section 42, Canon VI of the CPRA barred imposing disbarment again. Disposition: Gadon was found guilty and the disbarment was recorded in his personal file for any future clemency petition; a PHP 150,000 fine was imposed (citing Valmonte v. Quesada on fining a disbarred lawyer for earlier offenses); the decision was immediately executory.