2000 cases.doc

7/27/2019 2000 CASES.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2000-casesdoc 1/4

Case Title(1)

CaseNo.

Case Abstract /Summary

Canon/RuleViolated

Penalty/Sanctions

Othercomments

Estrada vs.Sandiganbayan(2003)

G.R. No.159486-

88

Atty. Alan Paguia,counsel of JosephEstrada, constantly

made public statementsin violation of his dutiesas officer of the court.

On the 7thSeptember 2003 issueof the Daily Tribune,Atty. Paguia wrote tosay -

“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right to due

process of law? It rendersthe decision in Estrada vs.

Arroyo unconstitutionaland void. The rudiments of fair play were not observed. There was nofair play since it appearsthat when President Estrada filed his petition,Chief Justice Davide andhis fellow justices hadalready committed to theother party - GMA - with a

judgment already madeand waiting to beformalized after thelitigants shall haveundergone the charade of a formal hearing. After the

justices had authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they beexpected to voluntarily admit theunconstitutionality of their own act?”

In liberally imputingsinister and deviousmotives and questioningthe impartiality,integrity, and authorityof the members of theCourt, Atty. Paguia hassucceeded in seeking toimpede, obstruct andpervert the dispensation

Canon 11 of Code of ProfessionalResponsibility, “ A lawyer shall observeand maintainthe respect due to thecourts and to

judicialofficers andshould insist on similar conduct by others.”

Rule 13.02 of CPR, “ Alawyer shallnot make

publicstatements inthe mediaregarding a

pending casetending toarouse publicopinion for or against a

party.”

Indefinitelysuspended

TheSupremeCourt does

not claiminfallibility, itwill notdenouncecriticismmade byanyoneagainst theCourt for, ifwell-founded,can truly haveconstructive

effects in thetask of theCourt, but iwill notcountenanceanywrongdoingnor allow theerosion of ourpeople’s faithin the judiciasystem, let

alone, bythose whohave beenprivileged byit to practicelaw in thePhilippines.

7/27/2019 2000 CASES.doc


of justice.

Furthermore Atty.Paguia has continued tomake public statementsof like nature.

The Court hasalready warned Atty.

Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, tobecome mindful of hisgrave responsibilities asa lawyer and as anofficer of the Court.Apparently, he haschosen not to at all takeheed.

Case Title(2)

CaseNo.

Case Abstract /Summary

Canon/RuleViolated

Penalty/Sanctions

Othercomments

In Re:PublishedAlleged

ThreatsAgainstMembers of the Court inthe Plunder

Law CaseHurled byAtty.Leonard DeVera (2002)

A.M. No.01-12-03-SC

Atty. Leonard Dewas found guilty of indirect contempt foruttering some allegedlycontemptuousstatements in relation tothe case involving theconstitutionality of the

Plunder Law (RepublicAct No. 7080). In anissue of the PhilippineDaily Inquirer,respondent suggestedthat the Court must takesteps to dispel once andfor all these ugly rumorsand reports that theCourt would vote infavor of or against thevalidity of the Plunder

Law to protect thecredibility of the Court.

Clearly,respondent’s utterancespressuring the Court torule in favor of theconstitutionality of thePlunder Law or riskanother series of massactions by the public

FINED inthe amountof Twenty

ThousandPesos(P20,000.00)

The judiciaryas the branchof governmenttasked toadminister

justice, tosettle

justiciablecontroversiesor disputesinvolvingenforceableanddemandablerights, and toafford redressof wrongs fothe violationof said rights

must beallowed todecide casesindependently, free ofoutsideinfluence orpressure. Anindependent

judiciary isessential to

7/27/2019 2000 CASES.doc


cannot be construed asfalling within the ambitof constitutionally-protected speech,because suchstatements are not faircriticisms of anydecision of the Court,but obviously arethreats made against itto force the Court todecide the issue in aparticular manner, orrisk earning the ire of the public. Suchstatements showdisrespect not only forthe Court but also forthe judicial system as a

whole, tend to promotedistrust and underminepublic confidence in the

judiciary, by creatingthe impression that theCourt cannot be trustedto resolve casesimpartially and violatethe right of the partiesto have their case triedfairly by an independenttribunal, uninfluenced

by public clamor andother extraneousinfluences.

It is respondent’sduty as an officer of thecourt, to uphold thedignity and authority of the courts and topromote confidence inthe fair administration of

justice and in the

Supreme Court as thelast bulwark of justiceand democracy.Respondent’sutterances while thecase of Estrada vs.Sandiganbayan waspending considerationby this Court, belies hisprotestation of goodfaith but were clearly

themaintenanceof democracyas well as ofpeace andorder insociety.Further,maintainingthe dignity ocourts andenforcing theduty ofcitizens torespect themare necessaryadjuncts totheadministrationof justice.

7/27/2019 2000 CASES.doc


made to mobilize publicopinion and bringpressure on the Court.

2000 cases.doc

Documents