The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Lorenzo “Larry” G. Gadon to pay a fine of P150,000 for gross misconduct with forfeiture of eligibility for judicial clemency.
It ruled that since Gadon had already been disbarred, he can no longer be disbarred anew. However, being ineligible for judicial clemency means that although disbarred lawyers can seek reinstatement, Gadon can no longer do so in light of the SC decision.
In an en banc decision, the High Court resolved the complaint filed against Gadon before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which sought his disbarment for falsehoods in an impeachment complaint he had filed against then de facto (in fact or in practice) Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno before the House of Representatives.
Gadon was also accused of “filing baseless criminal charges” against several SC officials.
After investigation, the IBP’s Committee on Bar Discipline recommended that Gadon be suspended for two years after it found that Gadon lied under oath when he claimed that Sereno falsified an SC temporary restraining order (TRO).
The IBP committee dismissed for lack of evidence the allegation of baseless cases against SC officials. The IBP’s Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) modified to three years the recommended period of suspension.
While the SC adopted the findings of the IBP-BOG, it modified the penalty as it ruled that Gadon was guilty of gross misconduct punishable by disbarment.
However, the SC said that since Gadon “had already been previously disbarred, the penalty of disbarment will no longer be imposed but nevertheless recorded in his personal file.”
In its decision, the SC found that Gadon committed perjury for making allegations in his impeachment complaint not based on his personal knowledge or on any authentic records, contrary to his sworn guarantee in the Verification attached to his complaint.
“Gadon knew that he never had any personal knowledge nor any authentic document to support the accusation that Sereno falsified a TRO of the Court. Yet, he still included this in his verified impeachment complaint, attempting to lend a semblance of credibility to his unfounded accusation,” the SC said.
“This not only deceived the HOR, but also revealed an intent to inflict unnecessary harm to the reputation of a lawyer and former member of the Court. All these confirm that Gadon was motivated by a malicious intent to malign and defame Sereno,” it added.
The High Tribunal also said that the subsequent 2018 case of Republic v. Sereno, which nullified Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice, and the preliminary findings of the HOR Committee on Justice do not absolve Gadon.
“His disregard for the verification requirement in impeachment complaints shows disrespect for the impeachment process, using it to advance his personal agenda rather than air genuine and legitimate grievances,” the SC lamented.
The High Court thus ruled that Gadon “violated Canon II, Section 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which prohibits lawyers from making false statements and makes him liable for Gross Misconduct, a serious offense.”
