Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465,

G.R. Nos. 159486-88
November 25, 2003
Doctrines:
Court will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s
faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to
practice law in the Philippines.—The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it
will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded can
truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any
wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial system, let
alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.
A lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial
officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others.—Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist
on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and
questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty.
Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of
justice.
FACTS:
1. Atty. Allan Paguia the legal counsel for the deposed president Joseph Ejercito
Estrada filed a Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Seeking the following
relief:
***“1.That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the
Honorable Court disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding this
petition;
“2.That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set
aside; and
“3.That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending
before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Atty. Paguia further asserts that members of the Supreme Court should inhibit in
deciding on the case as justices are prohibited in any partisan political activity as
some have participated in the EDSA 2 rally, which is a violation of Rule 5.10 of Code
of Judicial Conduct.
3. Several Resolution had been filed by the legal counsel which is in the disguise of
forum shopping, to which the court issued a resolution on July 08, 2003 with a
warning to Atty. Allan Paguia it states, “ on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist
from further making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its
Members.”
4. Atty. Paguia even after the court’s warning persist on filing cases after cases, to
which the Supreme Court rendered its decision dismissing the certiorari and
demanding the petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estradato show cause and provide a valid
reason on why the Supreme Court should not suspend the legal counsel for conduct
unbecoming a lawyer and officer of the court.
5. Atty. Allan Paguia submitted a response with a continuous claim of political
partisan ship of some of the member of the court, and quoting Canon 5.10 to attack
the member of the the court. Canon 5(10) “A judge is entitled to entertain personal
views on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge
shall not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse
candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities”
6. The court responded on the allegations of Atty. Paguia, citing Section 79(b) of the
Omnibus Election Code defines the term “partisan political activities;” the law states:
“The term ‘election campaign’ or ‘partisan political activity’ refers to an act
designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a
public office which shall include:
“(1)Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons
for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a
candidate;
“(2)Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other
similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any
campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate.
“(3)Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or
against the election of any candidate for public office;
“(4)Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or
oppose the election of any candidate; or
“(5)Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a
candidate.” Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465, G.R. Nos. 159486-88
November 25, 2003
7. The court then flagged Atty. Paguia on possible nonobservance of, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist
on similar conduct by others.
8. The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in
ignoring the Court’s well-meant admonition.
On the 7th September 2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say—
“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s

right to due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs.
Arroyo unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not
observed. There was no fair play since it appears that when President
Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices
had already committed to the other party—GMA—with a judgment
already made and waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall have
undergone the charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had
authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they be expected
to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?”
Issue:
Whether Atty. Paguia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Paguia had been warned repeatedly on the conduct that should be observed
along with the privilege of a practicing law.
In Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility it mandates that the lawyer

should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and,
indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. While Rule 13.02 of Code of
Professional Responsibility states that, “A lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.”
In this case the Atty. Paguia was repeatedly warned, however feeling passionate about
the case, he failed to observe the etiquette that is expected from a lawyer when he
repeatedly filed several cases which are already a forum shopping in nature,
responded with an unfounded claim that some justices violated of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, when the law is clear on the definition of partisan political activity, and
going out to the media stating again his unfounded claim, when the Code of
Professional Responsibility is clear on the limitation on issuance of statements on a
pending case which will arouse public opinion that may affect the people’s trust and
confidence on the legal and judicial system.
Wherefore, for the violation of Rule 11 and 13.2 the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Mr. Allan Paguia is indefinitely suspended of practice of law, inside
and outside of the Halls of Justice. Let the copy of this resolution be furnished the
Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bat of the Philippines, and Office of the
Court Administrator.

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada vs.

Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465,

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

In Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility it mandates that the lawyer

You might also like