Case Digest (G.R. No. 154297-300)
Facts:
Public Attorneys Office, Maximo B. Usita, Jr. and Wilfredo C. Andres v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, Special Division, G.R. Nos. 154297-300, February 15, 2008, Supreme Court En Banc, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) and two of its lawyers, Atty. Maximo B. Usita, Jr. and Atty. Wilfredo C. Andres; the respondent is the Sandiganbayan, Special Division, the special court constituted to try cases arising from events involving former President Joseph Estrada. The subject matter concerns the Sandiganbayan’s May 28, 2002 and June 2002 resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers as counsels de oficio for accused former President Joseph Estrada and his son Jose Jinggoy Estrada.The antecedent events began with the Chief Public Attorney, Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, personally appearing before the Special Division on March 15 and 18, 2002 to request relief from appearing as de oficio counsel; that request was denied. On May 8, 2002 the Chief Public Attorney filed an urgent ex parte motion to be relieved from court‑appointed duties, asserting heavy administrative workload and that the accused were not indigent; on May 9, 2002 the Sandiganbayan relieved her for the stated administrative reasons. On May 14, 2002 the remaining eight PAO lawyers moved to be relieved on the ground that the accused were not indigent and therefore not qualified for PAO representation.
On May 28, 2002 the Special Division denied that motion but, exercising its discretion, reduced the PAO complement and retained only two PAO lawyers — the petitioners Usita and Andres — to continue as counsels de oficio alongside four privately appointed court‑appointed counsels. Petitioners moved for reconsideration on June 4, 2002; the Special Division denied reconsideration in a June 2002 resolution, reiterating that the movants’ arguments were mere rehashes and not valid justification for relief.
PAO then filed this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in retaining PAO lawyers for non‑indigent accused. The PAO argued that the Sandiganbayan improperly relied on Section 7, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to justify the appointments and that, as an institution created to assist indigent persons (per LOI No. 20, PD No. 1725 and Sec. 14, Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987), PAO may represent only indigent clients under its implementing memoranda (Memorandum Circular Nos. 5/1997, 12/2001 and 18/2002) which set income thresholds for indigency. PAO further relied on Rule 14.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to show PAO lawyers' duties but stressed institutional limits.
The Sandiganbayan, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, justified its actions by describing a crisis: the accused had dismissed their private counsels (publicly), and some co‑accused’s counsels withdrew, leaving the court unable to proceed and threatening the accused’s constitutional right to be heard by counsel. The Special Division in...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for certiorari moot because the Sandiganbayan cases against the accused have been finally resolved?
- Did the Sandiganbayan, Special Division, commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers as counsels de oficio for accus...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)