Case Digest (G.R. No. 159486-88)
Facts:
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Special Division), Hon. Minita Chico-Nazario, Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, Hon. Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and the People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 159486-88, November 25, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam, resolved a Rule 65 petition and attendant disciplinary matter involving petitioner’s counsel.Petitioner Estrada, through counsel Attorney Alan F. Paguia, sought certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul resolutions of the Sandiganbayan Special Division that denied his motions — an Omnibus Motion (filed May 19, 2003) and related motions to dismiss and for reconsideration — and to dismiss three pending criminal cases (Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905) for lack of jurisdiction. Among the reliefs sought before the Sandiganbayan and renewed in the Supreme Court petition were: (a) the disqualification of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the other members of the Supreme Court from hearing the petition; (b) vacatur of the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions denying petitioner’s motions; and (c) dismissal of the criminal cases.
Before the Sandiganbayan, Estrada’s counsel presented portions of Justice Artemio Panganiban’s book Reforming the Judiciary as purported evidence and moved (June 9, 2003) to prove the “truth” of statements in that book bearing on alleged prejudgment by Supreme Court justices. He sought subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum directed to several justices, public officials, and Vice‑President Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo concerning events surrounding Arroyo’s proclamation as President on January 20, 2001. Petitioner alleged that the justices had “prejudged” issues by attending the EDSA 2 rally and by authorizing Ms. Arroyo’s assumption of the presidency, invoking Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to support disqualification.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motions (order of July 2, 2003) and later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and motion for disqualification (resolutions promulgated July 25 and July 28, 2003, received July 31, 2003). Estrada filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court challenging those denials. The Court initially resolved the petition (quoted in the record) by dismissing it for insufficiency and lack of merit and ordered Atty. Alan Paguia to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer. Paguia responded on October 10, 2003, reiterating his accusations against the Court. The Court thereafter issued the final resolution (November 25, 2003) dismissing the petition and imposing discipline on Atty. Paguia.
In its reasoning the Court treated the substantive charge of supposed judicial partisanship (invoking Canon/Rule 5.10) as unavailing because attendance at official events and the Chief Justice’s role in an oath-taking are official functions not constituting partisan polit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 properly granted because the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motions?
- Did the attendance of Supreme Court justices at EDSA 2 and the Chief Justice’s role in President Arroyo’s proclamation require their disqualification under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- Should Attorney Alan F. Paguia be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer for his public accusations...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)