Atty. Allan Paguia

8/12/2019 Atty. Allan Paguia

1/5

[G.R. Nos. 159486-88. November 25, 2003.]

PRESIDENT !SEP" EER#IT! ESTR$D$, Petitioner, v. T"E "!N!R$%&E S$NDIG$N%$'$N [SPE#I$&

DI(ISI!N], "!N. )INIT$ #"I#!-N$*$RI!, "!N. EDI&%ERT! S$ND!($&, "!N. TERESIT$ &E!N$RD!-DE

#$STR!, + T"E PE!P&E ! T"E P"I&IPPINES ! T"E P"I&IPPINES, Respondents.

On 23 September 2003, this Court issued its resolution in the above-numbered case; it read: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"he case !or consideration has been brouht to this Court via a #etition !or Certiorariunder $ule %& o! the $ules o!

Court !iled by 'oseph ()ercito (strada, actin throuh his counsel *ttorney *lan + #auia, aainst the Sandianbayan,

et at he #etition prays

". hat Chie! 'ustice /avide and the rest o! the members o! the onorable Court dis1uali!y themselves !rom hearin

and decidin this petition;

"2 hat the assailed resolutions o! the Sandianbayan be vacated and set aside; and

"3 hat Criminal Cases o 2%&&, o 2%&%& and o 2%40& pendin be!ore the Sandianbayan be dismissed !or

lac5 o! )urisdiction

"*ttorney *lan + #auia, spea5in !or petitioner, asserts that the inhibition o! the members o! the Supreme Court

!rom hearin the petition is called !or under $ule &.0 o! the Code o! 'udicial Conduct prohibitin )ustices or )udes

!rom participatin in any partisan political activity which proscription, accordin to him, the )ustices have violated by

attendin the 6(/S* 2 $ally7 and by authori8in the assumption o! 9ice-#resident loria acapaal *rroyo to the

#residency in violation o! the .4< Constitution #etitioner contends that the )ustices have thereby pre)uded a case

that would assail the leality o! the act ta5en by #resident *rroyo he subse1uent decision o! the Court in (strada v

*rroyo =3&3 SC$* >&2 and 3&% SC$* .0? is, petitioner states, a patent moc5ery o! )ustice and due process

"*ttorney #auia !irst made his appearance !or petitioner when he !iled an Omnibus otion on .4 ay 2003, be!ore

the Sandianbayan, as5in that 6the appointment o! counsels de o!!icio =sic? be declared !unctus o!!icio7 and that,

bein the now counsel de parte, he be noti!ied o! all subse1uent proceedins in Criminal Cases o 2%&&, o 2%&%&

and o 2%40& pendin therein +inally, *ttorney #auia as5ed that all the !oreoin criminal cases aainst his client

be dismissed

"/urin the hearin o! the Omnibus otion on 30 ay 2003, petitioner presented to the court several portions o! the

boo5, entitled 6$e!ormin the 'udiciary,7 written by 'ustice *rtemio #ananiban, to be part o! the evidence !or the

de!ense On 4 'une 2003, petitioner !iled a motion pleadin, amon other thins, that

"a? #resident (strada be ranted the opportunity to prove the 6truth7 o! the statements contained in 'ustice

*rtemio #ananiban7s boo5, 6$(+O$@ ( 'A/@C@*$B,7 in relation to the pre)udment committed by the Supreme

Court )ustices aainst #resident (strada in the sub)ect cases o! (strada v *rroyo, 3&3 SC$* >&2 and 3&% SC$* .0;

and,

"b? * subpoena ad testi!icandum and duces tecum be issued to 'ustice *rtemio #ananiban, 'ustice *ntonio Carpio,

'ustice $enato Corona, Secretary *nelo $eyes o! the /epartment o! ational /e!ense, 9ice #resident loria

acapaal-*rroyo, Senator *1uilino #imentel, 'r, and Chie! 'ustice ilario /avide, 'r !or them to testi!y and brin

whatever supportin documents they may have in relation to their direct and indirect participation in the proclamation

o! 9ice #resident loria acapaal-*rroyo on 'anuary 20, 200., as cited in the boo5 o! 'ustice #ananiban, includin


2/5

the material events that led to that proclamation and the rulins in the (strada v *rroyo, supra7 =$ollo, pp %D 'uly 2003, a motion !or their

dis1uali!ication On 3. 'uly 2003, petitioner received the two assailed resolutions, ie, the resolution =#romulated on

30 'uly 2003? o! 2 'uly 2003, denyin petitioner7s motion !or reconsideration o! % 'uly 2003; vi8: chanrob.esvirtua. .aw.ibrary

6G($(+O$(, premises considered, Accused-movant 'oseph ()ercito (strada7s 6osyon #anre5onsiderasyon7 =a

tumutu5oy sa 'oint $esolution n ulyo 2, 2003? dated 'uly %, 2003 is /(@(/ !or lac5 o! merit7 =$ollo, p 3


3/5

6he act o! the public o!!icer, i! F*G+AF, is the act o! the public o!!ice Eut the act o! the public o!!icer, i! AF*G+AF, is

not the act o! the public o!!ice Conse1uently, the act o! the )ustices, i! F*G+AF, is the act o! the Supreme Court Eut

the act o! the )ustices, i! AF*G+AF, is not the act o! the Supreme Court @t is submitted that the /ecision in

(S$*/* v *$$OBO bein patently unlaw!ul in view o! $ule &.0 o! the CO/( O+ 'A/@C@*F CO/AC, is not the act

o! the Supreme Court but is merely the wron or trespass o! those individual 'ustices who !alsely spo5e and acted in

the name o! the Supreme Court =Arbano v Chave8, .3 SC$* I3>


4/5

"he term 6election campain7 or 6partisan political activity7 re!ers to an act desined to promote the election or de!eat

o! a particular candidate or candidates to a public o!!ice which shall include: )c:chanroblescomph

"=.? +ormin orani8ations, associations, clubs, committees or other roups o! persons !or the purpose o! solicitin

votes andor underta5in any campain !or or aainst a candidate;

"=2? oldin political caucuses, con!erences, meetins, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, !or the purpose o!

solicitin votes andor underta5in any campain or propaanda !or or aainst a candidate

"=3? a5in speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holdin interviews !or or aainst the election o! any

candidate !or public o!!ice;

"=>? #ublishin or distributin campain literature or materials desined to support or oppose the election o! any

candidate; or

"=&? /irectly or indirectly solicitin votes, pledes or support !or or aainst a candidate" cralawvirtua.awlibrary

@t should be clear that the phrase "partisan political activities," in its statutory conteHt, relates to acts desined to

cause the success or the de!eat o! a particular candidate or candidates who have !iled certi!icates o! candidacy to a

public o!!ice in an election he ta5in o! an oath o! o!!ice by any incomin #resident o! the $epublic be!ore the Chie!

'ustice o! the #hilippines is a traditional o!!icial !unction o! the ihest aistrate he assailed presence o! other

)ustices o! the Court at such an event could be no di!!erent !rom their appearance in such other o!!icial !unctions as

attendin the *nnual State o! the ation *ddress by the #resident o! the #hilippines be!ore the Feislative

/epartmentchanrob.esvirtua. .aw.ibrary

he Supreme Court does not claim in!allibility; it will not denounce criticism made by anyone aainst the Court !or, i!

well-!ounded, can truly have constructive e!!ects in the tas5 o! the Court, but it will not countenance any wrondoin

nor allow the erosion o! our people7s !aith in the )udicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileed by it to

practice law in the #hilippines

Canon .. o! the Code o! #ro!essional $esponsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the

respect due to the courts and )udicial o!!icers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others @n liberally

imputin sinister and devious motives and 1uestionin the impartiality, interity, and authority o! the members o! the

Court, *tty #auia has only succeeded in see5in to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation o! )ustice

he attention o! *tty #auia has also been called to the mandate o! $ule .302 o! the Code o! #ro!essional

$esponsibility prohibitin a member o! the bar !rom ma5in such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse

public opinion !or or aainst a party $erettably, *tty #auia has persisted in inorin the Court7s well-meant

admonition

On the


5/5

shall have underone the charade o! a !ormal hearin *!ter the )ustices had authori8ed the proclamation o! * as

president, can they be eHpected to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality o! their own actK"

Anrelentinly, *tty #auia has continued to ma5e public statements o! li5e nature

he Court has already warned *tty #auia, on pain o! disciplinary sanction, to become mind!ul o! his rave

responsibilities as a lawyer and as an o!!icer o! the Court *pparently, he has chosen not to at all ta5e heed

G($(+O$(, *ttorney *lan #auia is hereby inde!initely suspended !rom the practice o! law, e!!ective upon his receipt

hereo!, !or conduct unbecomin a lawyer and an o!!icer o! the Court

Fet copies o! this resolution be !urnished the O!!ice o! the Ear Con!idant, the @nterated Ear o! the #hilippines and all

courts o! the land throuh the O!!ice o! the Court *dministrator

SO O$/($(/ chanrob.esvirt

As early as January, 2008, Paguia himself had requested the SC to lift the suspension, by telling the court that thepurpose of the suspension had been achieved and there !as no more useful purpose to continue it"

Subsequently, the SC on #arch $0, 2008 approved a resolution holding in abeyance the resolution of the petition to liftPaguia%s suspension pending the submission of proof that the &'P and the civic and religious sectors !ere favorablyendorsing his reinstatement to the practice of la! and certification from competent courts that he has not appeared incourt as counsel during his suspension"

Atty. Allan Paguia

Documents

Transcript of Atty. Allan Paguia