View full case

PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

On September 23, 2003, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, through his counsel Attorney Alan F. Paguia, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the Sandiganbayan and other respondents. The petition sought three main reliefs: disqualification of the members of the Supreme Court, vacation of the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, and dismissal of the criminal cases pending before the Sandiganbayan for lack of jurisdiction. Paguia argued that the justices violated Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by participating in partisan political activities and prejudging a case that would challenge the legality of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assuming the presidency. Paguia first appeared for petitioner when he filed a motion before the Sandiganbayan, requesting the declaration of counsels de officio as functus officio and that he be notified of all subsequent proceedings in the criminal cases against his client. He also asked for the dismissal of the criminal cases. During the hearing of the motion, petitioner presented portions of a book written by Justice Artemio Panganiban as evidence for the defense. Petitioner also filed a motion requesting to prove the truth of the statements in Justice Panganiban's book and a subpoena be issued to several key individuals to testify on their participation in the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo. The Sandiganbayan denied all of petitioner's motions and on July 31, 2003, petitioner received the resolutions denying his motion for reconsideration and motion for disqualification.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan justices should be disqualified due to alleged bias and partial attitude.

  2. Whether or not the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion for reconsideration and motion for disqualification should be challenged.

  3. Whether or not Attorney Paguia should be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

  4. The issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Alan Paguia should be suspended from the practice of law for his conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

RULING:

  1. The Sandiganbayan justices should not be disqualified. The motion for disqualification is denied for lack of merit.

  2. The resolutions of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion for reconsideration and motion for disqualification should not be challenged. The petition for certiorari is dismissed for gross insufficiency in substance and utter lack of merit.

  3. Attorney Paguia should show cause why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

  4. The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that Atty. Alan Paguia should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law due to his conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions but should avoid suspicion of political partisanship.

  • Making public statements on any pending case that tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party is prohibited under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Sanctions may be imposed on lawyers who exhibit conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

  • Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that lawyers should observe and maintain respect towards the courts and judicial officers.

  • Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from making public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

  • The Supreme Court will not denounce criticism made against it, as long as it is well-founded and can have constructive effects. However, it will not allow any wrongdoing or the erosion of the people's faith in the judicial system.

  • The phrase "partisan political activities" in its statutory context refers to acts designed to cause the success or defeat of a particular candidate in an election. The taking of an oath of office by the incoming President of the Republic before the Chief Justice is a traditional official function.

  • Lawyers have a grave responsibility as officers of the Court and should not impede, obstruct, or pervert the dispensation of justice.