Case Summary (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC)
Petitioner
Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida.
Respondent
Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Key Dates
• August 30, 2017 – Impeachment complaint filed in the House of Representatives.
• May 11, 2018 – Decision ordering Sereno to show cause for alleged violations of the sub judice rule and professional standards.
• March 25, 2019 – En Banc decision on the administrative matter.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
• New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC)
• Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court (indirect contempt provisions)
Factual and Procedural Antecedents
Sereno faced simultaneous impeachment and quo warranto proceedings in 2017–2018. While the impeachment complaint alleged constitutional violations and corruption, the Solicitor General’s quo warranto petition questioned her eligibility as Chief Justice. During these parallel actions, Sereno delivered speeches, gave interviews, and participated in public rallies, commenting on the merits of pending judicial proceedings and casting aspersions on colleagues and the institution.
Breach of the Sub Judice Rule and Professional Standards
Sereno’s public statements violated the sub judice rule, which bars extrajudicial comments that may influence judicial proceedings. As both a lawyer and the nation’s top judicial officer, she was bound by CPR Canon 13, Rule 13.02 (prohibiting media statements on pending cases) and NCJC Canons on independence, integrity, impartiality, and propriety.
Show Cause Order and Respondent’s Compliance
On May 11, 2018, the Court ordered Sereno to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for:
- Transgressing the sub judice rule.
- Casting ill motives on Members of the Court.
Sereno filed a Verified Compliance and a Motion for Inhibition, arguing that as a party-litigant (not counsel or judge) she was not subject to those standards, and that her statements posed no “clear and present danger” to justice.
Motion for Inhibition
Sereno sought the inhibition of six Associate Justices on alleged bias grounds. The Court, invoking its prior quo warranto decision, held that mere imputation of bias without basis fails to warrant inhibition. The motion was denied.
Obligation of Lawyers and Judges to Uphold Professional Conduct
The Court rejected Sereno’s argument that she should be treated as an ordinary litigant. It reaffirmed that lawyers and judges must maintain high moral character, honesty, and fair dealing at all times. Any conduct—private or professional—that brings reproach on the profession or institution is sanctionable.
Sub Judice Rule and Administrative Discipline
Although the “clear and present danger” test applies in contempt proceedings, administrative discipline for sub judice violations follows from the CPR and NCJC. These codes expressly require lawyers and judges to refrain from public commentary on pending cases.
Violations of CPR and NCJC by Respondent
Sereno’s speeches and interviews contained assertions that:
- Granting the quo warranto petition would establish a dictatorship and destroy the judiciary.
- The Court lacked impartiality and would not render a fair decision.
- Government actors, including the Solicitor General, sought to undermine judicial independence.
Such statements prejudged the issues, undermined public confidence, and disparaged Members of the Court.
Respo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC)
Jurisdiction and Nature of the Proceedings
- Administrative matter arising from the Supreme Court’s May 11, 2018 decision in G.R. No. 237428 (quo warranto petition against respondent).
- En Banc Show Cause Order issued on July 17, 2018 under A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC.
- Purpose: to determine whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC) by publicly discussing a pending case.
Factual and Procedural Antecedents
- August 30, 2017: Impeachment complaint filed before the House Committee on Justice against Chief Justice Sereno.
- October 2017: Quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, questioning respondent’s eligibility.
- Respondent repeatedly refused to participate in congressional hearings and to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the quo warranto case.
- In lieu of formal participation, respondent embarked on a nationwide public campaign—speeches, interviews, forums, rallies—critiquing the petition and its proponents.
Sub judice Rule and Professional Cannons Implicated
- Sub judice rule: prohibits public comment on pending judicial cases to prevent prejudgment and protect the administration of justice.
- CPR Canon 13, Rule 13.02: bans public statements in the media regarding pending cases to arouse public opinion.
- CPR Canon 11: requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to courts and judges.
- NCJC Canons on Independence (Canon 1), Integrity (Canon 2), Impartiality (Canon 3) and Propriety (Canon 4): impose strict restraints on judges’ and justices’ public conduct.
Show Cause Order and Respondent’s Verified Compliance
- May 11, 2018 decision: Court ordered respondent to show cause for alleged sub judice violations and casting aspersions on Justices.
- June 13, 2018: Respondent filed Verified Compliance and Motion for Inhibition of six Justices.
- Main arguments in compli