EN BANC
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018
RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION DATED MAY 11, 2018 IN G.R. NO. 237428 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA V. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO)
D E C I S I O N
TIJAM, J.:
The instant administrative matter is an offshoot of G.R. No. 237428 entitled Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, hereinafter referred to as the quo warranto case or proceedings against Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (respondent). A brief statement of the factual and procedural antecedents of the case is, thus, in order.
(1) Respondent contends that she should not be judged on the stringent standards set forth in the CPR and the NCJC, emphasizing that her participation in the quo warranto case is not as counsel or a judge but as a party-litigant.5
(2) The imputed acts against respondent did not create any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice to warrant the Court's exercise of its power of contempt in accordance with the "clear and present danger" rule.6 Respondent avers that she cannot be faulted for the attention that the quo warranto case gained from the public considering that it is a controversial case, which involves issues of transcendental importance.7
(3) Assuming arguendo that the CPR and the NCJC apply, respondent argues that in addressing the matters of impeachment and quo warranto to the public, she was in fact discharging her duty as a Justice and a lawyer to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the law and legal processes pursuant to the said Codes.8
(4) Assuming arguendo that respondent violated some provisions of the CPR and the NCJC in her public statements, the same does not warrant the exercise of the Court's power to discipline in view of the attendant circumstances, to wit: (a) no less than the Solicitor General repeatedly made personal attacks against her and publicly discussed the merits of the case, hence, she had to respond to such accusations against her; and (b) she was not given her right to due process despite her repeated demand.9
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws, as he is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.Second. Respondent argues that the public statements attributed to her must have created a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice to warrant punishment.
[T]he practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well x x x. That is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members.18 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. - x x x, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:As can be observed, discussions regarding sub judice often relates to contempt of court. In this regard, respondent correctly pointed out that the "clear and present danger" rule should be applied in determining whether, in a particular situation, the court's contempt power should be exercised to maintain the independence and integrity of the Judiciary, or the Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech should be upheld. Indeed, in P/Supt. Marantan v. Atty. Diokno, et al.,25 the Court explained:
x x x x
c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
x x x x
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue. influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, x x x.From the foregoing, respondent may be correct in arguing that there must exist a "clear and present danger" to the administration of justice for statements or utterances covered by the sub judice rule to be considered punishable under the rules of contempt.
x x x x
The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in nature. This form of contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. Intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.
For a comment to be considered as contempt of court "it must really appear" that such does impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of justice. What is, thus, sought to be protected is the all important duty of the court to administer justice in the decision of a pending case. The specific rationale for the sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
The power of contempt is inherent in all courts in order to allow them to conduct their business unhampered by publications and comments which tend to impair the impartiality of their decisions or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. As important as the maintenance of freedom of speech, is the maintenance of the independence of the Judiciary. The "clear and present danger" rule may serve as an aid in determining the proper constitutional boundary between these two rights.
The "clear and present danger" rule means that the evil consequence of the comment must be "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high" before an utterance can be punished. There must exist a clear and present danger that the utterance will harm the administration of justice. Freedom of speech should not be impaired through the exercise of the power of contempt of court unless there is no doubt that the utterances in question make a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. It must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat.26 (Citations omitted)
Besides, as We have stated in the quo warranto case decision, the Court takes judicial notice of the undeniably manifest detrimental effect of this open and blatant disregard of the sub judice rule, which is a clear manifestation of the evil sought to be prevented by the said rule, i.e., "to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice."30 In the said decision, We cited the May 2, 2018 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, wherein certain individuals from different sectors of the society, lawyers included, not only pre-judged the case but worse, accused certain Members of the Court of being unable to act with justice, and threatening that the people will not accept any decision of such Members of the Court as the same is tainted by gross injustice. To be sure, these statements do not only "tend to" but categorically force and attempt to influence the deliberative and decision-making process of this Court.31CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PIDLIPPINE JUDICIARY
CANON 1 - INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.
SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before any court or administrative agency.
SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.
SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.
CANON 2 - INTEGRITY
Integrity is essentially not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
CANON 3 - IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession, and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could come before them, make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
CANON 4 - PROPRIETY
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other Citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
These public utterances did not only tend to arouse public opinion on the matter but as can be clearly gleaned from the tenor of the statements, such comments, speeches, and interviews given by the respondent in different forums indisputably tend to tarnish the Court's integrity and unfairly attributed false motives against its Members. Particularly, in several occasions, respondent insinuated the following: (i) that the grant of the quo warranto petition will result to dictatorship; (ii) in filing the quo warranto petition, the livelihood and safety of others are likewise in danger; (iii) that the people could no longer rely on the Court's impartiality; and (iv) that she could not expect fairness from the Court in resolving the quo warranto petition against her.
Event Source Quotations 'Speak Truth to Power' forum in UP Diliman, Quezon City on May 5, 2018 "Kung manalo ang quo warranto, mapupunta tayo sa diktaturya," she said "Talagang wawasakin completely ng quo warranto na ito ang judiciary.""Pag itong quo warranto natuloy, hindi na right and reason, kundi will - will na nung whoever is on top. So kailangan natin pigilan ito . . ." she said. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Central Luzon Regional Convention and Mandatory Continuing Legal Education at the Quest Hotel here on May 2, 2018 "Ano po ang tawag sa kondisyon na ang citizen walang kalabanlaban sa gobyerno" Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno asked. "Ang tawag po doon dictatorship, hindi po constitutional democracy ang tawag doon," she said.
"That is what is going to happen if the quo waranto petition is granted," Sereno stated.
"The booming voice of Justice Vicente Mendoza has reverberated that if the quo warranto petition is granted, the Judiciary will destroy itself," Sereno said as she also praised the IBP's stand to oppose and dismiss the petition. Forum on upholding Judicial Independence at the Ateneo Law School in Rockwell, Makati City on Wednesday, April 25, 2018
"Of my colleagues, I know that several of them, have had their qualifications, their inability to submit documentary requirements, waived, several of them. If the JBC was correct in saying that an attempt to submit requirements, that good faith should be accorded to the 14, including those against me, why am I the only one being singled out?," she told law students at the Ateneo Law School during a forum on judicial independence."The questions propounded by Supreme Court itself, they wanted to examine everything I did in the past in the hope they would find something scandalous in my life. I was just preparing myself for the question, 'ilang boyfriend mo na?,'" Sereno said, which elicited laughter from the crowd."Hindi ko naman po minanipula ni konti ang JBC...14 kaming pareparehong sitwasyon. Bakit nagreklamo kung kayo nalagay sa listahan at ako nalagay sa listahan. Ang masama ay hindi kayo ang nalagay at ako ang nalagay," she added. Speech at the Commencement Exercises of the College of Law of the University of San Agustin (USA) in Iloilo City, on April 20, 2018 "The month of May is a time that is supposed to be devoted to writing decisions in the many pending cases before the Court. Anyway the session will resume on June 5, so what's with the rush?""Wala namang dahilan para magmadali.""Kung tatoo po, indication po ito na mayroon na po silang conclusion bago pa man marinig ang lahat," Sereno said. Fellowship of the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) in Makati City on April 11, 2018 "Even your very livelihoods are threatened; there is no safety for any of you...That is how deadly this quo warranto petition is," she added.
Sereno said if the Supreme Court would cooperate in the move of the Executive to oust her sans impeachment trial, "I will use directly the words of Chief Justice Davide that it will be judicial hara-kiri, if not a judicial kamikaze bringing it the destruction of the entire judiciary as well as the entire consitutional framework." 30th Anniversary and 23rd National Convention of the Philippine Women Judges Association (PWJA) in Manila Hotel on Thursday, March 8, 2018 "I look at any forum to try me other than the constitutionally exclusive form of impeachment as an admission by the complainant and my other detractors that after 15 hearings, they have failed to come up with any evidence which I can be convicted in the Senate," she asserted.
"Sila ang nagsimula bakit ayaw nilang tapusin? Napakaaga naman yata para umamin sila na wala silang napala kundi matinding kabiguan kaya't kung anu-ano na lamang ang gimik ang ginagawa nila masunod lamang ang kanilang nais," Sereno added. CNN Philippines (March 9, 2018); One on One with the Chief Justice with Pinky Webb In this interview, CJOL Sereno, among others, stated that her defense preparation was directed towards the impeachment proceedings as she has not assessed yet the quo warranto petition as of the interview.
- "From the very beginning, we were looking really at the impeachment provisions of the Constitution so that has been the preparation all along. Well, I haven't yet assessed this latest quo warranto petition. Not yet time maybe"
- CJOL Sereno refused to talk about the quo warranto petition, but interpreted the SC's resolution which directed her to comment on said petition without taking due course to the petition. CJOL said that such action of the SC does not mean anything and affirmed Webb's interpretation that such action does not mean that the SC assumes jurisdiction over the quo warranto case.- "Yan naman talaga ang hindi ko pwede pagusapan, ano."- On jurisdiction: "Normal yan, marami kaming ganyan petition. Wala naman talagang ibig sabihin yan. In most cases, walang ibig sabihin yun kasi hindi pa prejudged. Pero hayaan niyo po muna yung lawyers ko ang magsabi kasi mahirap naman pong pangunahan ko sila eh ginagawa pa po nila yung sagot eh".- "Marami ho kaming laging ginagamit na without due course at marami kaming dinidismiss na nanggaling sa without giving due course pero pinagkocomment... It doesn't mean... Ang usual tradition po namin ay walang ibig sabihin poyun" Speech of CJOL Sereno at the Panpacific University North Philippines (March 9, 2018) (Posted by CNN Philippines)<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN511W9bpk> Directed towards politicians supposedly regarding the ongoing impeachment proceedings, CJOL Sereno said, "Wag na wag niyo kami gigipitin" and further stated that such what judicial independence means.- I know that our women judges, for example, are always eager to make a stand for judicial independence. Kayong mga pulitiko, wag nyong pakialaman ang aming mga gustong gawin kung palagay nyo kayo ay tama at andyan ang ebidensya, lalabas naman yan eh. Pero huwag na huwag nyo kaming gigipitin. Yan ang ibig sabihin ng judicial independence Speech on "The Mumshie on Fire: Speak Truth to Power" held at the University of the Philippines (May 5, 2018)
*Forum was organized by youth groups, Ako Ay Isang Sereno and Youth for Miriam - CJOL Sereno emphasized that AJ Leonardo-De Castro's inhibition would prove that she is unbiased.- Hindi sila tumigil, hangga't naisip ng isa, yung nagaakusa sa akin, "ay yung SALN niya, yung SALN nya na sinabi nya sa JBC na nahihirapan niyang humanap (sic). Yun, dun tugisin. At sinabi nya na dapat ako ay idisqualify dahil unjust daw na aka ang naappoint. May injustice na nangyari. So alam na natin ang isa sa pinagsisimulan nito".- CJOL Sereno said that "Even when they thought they have won, in the end, they will never win. The country is already woke. The youth would not listen to lies. The people own the judiciary They are not owned by the judiciary, the justices, the judges" and that the "good will always prevail over evil".- CJOL Sereno said that two of her accusers, who she considers as her rival also, will be one of those who will decide the quo warranto petition filed against her, thereby against the basic rules of fair play.- "Eh bakit biglang umatras sila (pertaining to her accusers in the impeachment proceedings) at ginawa itong kaso na quo warranto kung saan ang dalawa sa nagsabing hindi ako dapat naappoint eh sila rin ang maghuhusga sa akin. Saan kayo nakakita ng sitwasyon na yung karibal niyo sa posisyon ang may kapangyarihan sabihin kayong dapat ka matanggal sa posisyon, hindi ikaw dapat. Paano nangyari? Under what rules of fairness, what rules of Constitution or legal system can an accuser who acted also as my prosecutor during the oral arguments now sit as judge? This violates the most basic norms of fairplay... Ngayon talaga, nakita na, na hindi ho aka bibigyan talaga ng ilang ito ng kahit anong modicum of fairness"- She discussed that one of the effects of an invalid appointment is the forfeiture of retirement benefits.- "At alam nyo ho, pag sinabi na invalid yung appointment, pati yung retirement benefits ho tatanggalin"- The granting of a quo warranto would result into dictatorship and would destroy the judiciary.- At ano ho ang mangyayari kung ang buong sangay, ang lahat ng kawani ng gobyerno ay kayang takutin at hindi na pwedeng maging independent?.. Ano hong mangyayari kung ang COMELEC ho ay sinabihan ng Presidente at Solicitor General na "yung partido lang namin ang pwedeng manalo, kung hindi i-quo warranto ka namin?" Ano po yun? Ano yung tawag sa ganoong sitwasyon na may matinding pananakot sa buong bayan? Ang tawag po dun, diktaturya.. Kung manalo po ang quo warranto, yan po ang magiging resulta- "Saang korte kayo pupunta? Sino ang magtatapang na huwes kung madali na sila mapatanggal?... Hindi na ho kayo makakatakbo, kasi lahat ho ng judges tatakutin ng Solicitor General... Saan ho kayo pupunta sa isang arbiter na impartial?.. wala na po. Wawasakin nitong quo warranto petition nito, completely ang judiciary"- "Ano na ho ang mangyayari sa bayan natin kung wala na hong security of tenure sa government service? Kasi kung may kaunting kulang lang sa file... kulang ang file na nabigay sa JBC.. eh naglalabasan na ho ang SALN ko... pero eta tatanggalin at gagawa sila ng prinsipyo at ikawawasak ng buong bayan para lang sa kanilang personal na interes. Nakakalagim po ang pangyayari ito" Speech on Ateneo Law School for the forum Tindig: A forum on upholding judicial independence as a pillar of democracy (April 25, 2018) CJOL Sereno discussed the contents of the quo warranto petition.- On the prescriptive period, CJOL Sereno said that jobs of the justices, judges and government employees are jeopardized because of the assertion of the OSG that a petition for quo warranto does not prescribe against the government. CJOL Sereno said that such assertion makes the action imprescriptible.- "According to the Solicitor General, the one year prescriptive period can never apply against government. It must be personal knowledge of the Solicitor General himself. And so if you change the person of the Solicitor General, the period continues to always be fresh. It's a never prescriptible, a completely imprescriptible action. So you jeopardize the jobs of the justices, the judges and all gov't employees. You allow selected targeting against the Chief Justice for reasons that are very obvious now and you destroy the legal profession"- On the effect of the quo warranto petition, CJOL Sereno said that all incumbent judges and justices would be prejudiced because their qualifications may suddenly be reviewed.- "The SC itself really wanted to examine every little thing I did in the past in the hope that they would find something scandalous about my life..."- "It also prejudices more than 2000 judges and justices that are already sitting now because all of their qualifications may suddenly be reviewed. The JBC was wrong to waive this qualification for this position. I can tell you as a matter of record that of my colleagues, I know that several of them have had their qualifications, their inability to submit documentary requirements, waived. Several of them. So if the JBC was correct in saying that an attempt to submit the requirements, the good faith accorded to those who had missing requirements, should be accorded to 14 of us, including those who have complained loudly against me among my colleagues, why am I the only one being singled out? The rules of inability to submit all the SALNs were waived in favor of 14 out of 20 applicants, 6 out of the 8 were shortlisted. Why is the rule being invoked only against me? And so it would appear that this is selected targeting"
This dissent, however, should not be read as a shield for the respondent to be accountable for her actions.Truth be told, respondent miserably failed to discharge her duty as a member of the Bar to observe and maintain the respect due to the court and its officers. Specifically, respondent violated CANON 11 of the CPR, which states that:
x x x x
Unfortunately, in her efforts to save her tenure of public office she held as a privilege, this nuance relating to this Court's role in the constitutional democracy may have been lost on the respondent. She may have created too much of a political narrative which elided her own accountability and backgrounded her responsibilities as a member of this Court.
Ideally, a justice must be slow to make public statements, always careful that the facts before her may not be the entire reality. The conclusion that the initial effort to hold her to account for her acts was an attack on the entire judiciary itself should have been a judgment that should have been carefully weighed.
It was unfortunate that this seemed to have created the impression that she rallied those in political movements with their own agenda, tolerating attacks on her colleagues in social and traditional media. She may have broken the expectations we have had on parties to cases by speaking sub judice on the merits of the Quo Warranto Petition and her predictions on its outcome. She may not have met the reasonable expectation of a magistrate and a Chief Justice that, whatever the reasons and even at the cost of her own personal discomfort, she-as the leader of the Court-should not be the first to cause public shame and humiliation of her colleagues and the institution she represents.
x x x x
This Court has its faults, and I have on many occasions written impassioned dissents against my esteemed colleagues. But, there have always been just, legal, and right ways to do the right thing. As a Member of this Court, it should be reason that prevails. We should maintain the highest levels of ethics and professional courtesy even as we remain authentic to our convictions as to the right way of reading the law. Despite our most solid belief that we are right, we should still have the humility to be open to the possibility that others may not see it our way. As mature magistrates, we should be aware that many of the reforms we envision will take time.
False narratives designed to simplify and demonize an entire institution and the attribution of false motives is not the mark of responsible citizenship. Certainly, it is not what this country expects from any justice. Courts are sanctuaries of all rights. There are many cases pending in this Court where those who have much less grandeur than the respondent seek succor. Every judicial institution, every Justice of this Court, will have weaknesses as well as strengths. We should address the weaknesses tirelessly but with respect. We should likewise acknowledge the strengths which we intend to preserve. No court is perfect. All courts need reform.
It is reasonable to expect that the Chief Justice should have the broadest equanimity, to have an open mind, and to show leadership by being the first to defend her Court against underserved, speculative, callous, ad hominem, and irrelevant attacks on their personal reputation. She should be at the forefront to defend the Court against unfounded speculation and attacks. Unfortunately, in her campaign for victory in this case, her speeches may have goaded the public to do so and without remorse.
To succeed in discrediting the entire institution for some of its controversial decisions may contribute to weakening the legitimacy of its other opinions to grant succor to those oppressed and to those who suffer injustice.36 (Emphasis ours)
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.In Montencillo v. Gica,37 the Court emphasized the importance of observing and maintaining the respect due to the Courts and to its judicial officers, to wit:
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.38 (Citations omitted)Fourth. Respondent points out certain circumstances to justify her violative actions and statements.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others." Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer "shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only."In Judge Pantanosas v. Atty. Pamatong,45 respondent was suspended for two years for stating slanderous remarks in public against the judge and for resorting to the press for his grievances against the said judge while the case that he filed against the latter was already pending. The Court concluded its ruling with the following statements:
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent's statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which 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 regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to "conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients."
As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. x x x
x x x x
The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintaiiled.44 (Citations omitted and italics in the original)
In closing, we find it befitting to reiterate that lawyers have the right, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, closely linked to such rule is the cardinal condition that criticisms, no matter how truthful, shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. To that end, the duty of a lawyer to his client's success is wholly subordinate to the administration of justice.In exercising its disciplinary authority in administrative matters, however, this Court has always kept in mind that lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized. In administrative proceedings against lawyers, this Court is always guided by this principle, that is:
True, lawyers must always remain vigilant against unscrupulous officers of the law. However, the purification of our justice system from venal elements must not come at the expense of decency, and worse, the discrediting of the very system that it seeks to protect.46 (Citations omitted)
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to such extent as to clearly show the lawyer's unfitness to continue in the practice of law. The dubious character of the act charged as well as the motivation which induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the offense should also be considered.47 (Citation omitted)In Advincula v. Atty. Macabata,48 the Court further explained:
The question as to what disciplinary sanction should be imposed against a lawyer found guilty of misconduct requires consideration of a number of factors. When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. Disciplinary proceedings are means of protecting the administration of justice by requiring those who carry out this important function to be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular sanction that it may deem proper against an erring lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession and to the public.49 (Citations omitted)Indeed, "lawyer discipline x x x is not meant to punish; rather, its purpose is to protect clients, the public, the courts, and the legal profession."50 Conviction, punishment, retribution, much less, denigration have no place in administrative proceedings against lawyers.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
EDGAR O. ARICHETA | |
Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4Rollo, pp. 7-42.
5 Id. at 8.
6 Id. at 9-10.
7 Id. at 28.
8 Id. at 25.
9 Id. at 29-36.
10Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018.
11Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre, 599 Phil. 182, 191 (2009).
12Manuel L. Valin and Honoria L. Valin v. Atty. Rolando T. Ruiz, A.C. No. 10564, November 7, 2017.
13Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre, supra at 191-192.
14Radjaie v. Atty. Alovera, 392 Phil. 1, 17 (2000).
15Barrios v. Atty. Martinez, 485 Phil. 1, 14 (2004).
16 Id.
17Ventura v. Atty. Samson, 699 Phil. 404, 415 (2012).
18Valencia v. Atty. Antiniw, 579 Phil. 1, 13 (2008).
19 Black's Law Dictionary.
20 Separate Opinion of Justice Arturo Brion in Lejano v. People, 652 Phil. 512, 652 (2010).
21 Id.
22 <https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/proceduralpublications/Pages/factsheetno22.aspx> (visited June 30, 2018).
23 Supra note 20.
24 Id.
25 726 Phil. 642 (2014).
26 Id. at 648-649.
27Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991).
28Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018.
29Feliciano v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, 755 Phil. 349, 356 (2015).
30Romero II, et al. v. Senator Estrada, et. al., 602 Phil. 312, 319 (2009).
31Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, supra note 1.
32 Id.
33 Supra note 25.
34 Id.
35Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora v. Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan, A.C. No. 8208, January 10, 2018.
36 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen in Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018.
37 158 Phil. 443 (1974).
38 Id. at 453.
39Bajar v. Baterisna, 531 Phil. 229, 236 (2006).
40Office of the Ombudsman v. Reyes, 674 Phil. 416, 432 (2011), citing F/O Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 565 Phil. 731, 740 (2007).
41Atty. Barandon, Jr. v. Atty. Ferrer, Sr., 630 Phil. 524, 532 (2010).
42Judge Pantanosas v. Atty. Pamatong, 787 Phil. 86, 98 (2016).
43 561 Phil. 325 (2007).
44 Id. at 339-341.
45 787 Phil. 86 (2016).
46 Id. at 99-100.
47Advincula v. Atty. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431, 447-448 (2007).
48 546 Phil. 431 (2007).
49 Id. at 446-447.
50 Fred C. Zacharias, THE PURPOSE OF LAWYER DISCIPLINE, 45 Wm. & Mary L. Rev.675 (2003) citing James Duke Cameron, STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS-A LONG OVERDUE DOCUMENT, 19 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 91 (1987) (discussing the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, at 97.
51See Andres, et al. v. Atty. Nambi, 755 Phil. 225 (2015); Castro-Justo v. Atty. Galing, 676 Phil. 139 (2011 ); Plus Builders, Inc., et al. v. Atty. Revilla, Jr., 598 Phil. 255 (2009); Pena v. Atty. Aparicio, 552 Phil. 512 (2007); Spouses Williams v. Atty. Enriquez, 518 Phil. 372 (2006); Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, 474 Phil. 670 (2004).