A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC - Re: Republic vs. Sereno

Case Summary (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC)

Petitioner

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, who filed the original quo warranto petition challenging respondent’s eligibility and later prompted the Court’s order to show cause for administratively sanctionable conduct.

Respondent

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, former Chief Justice and member of the Bar, who made public speeches, interviews, and forum appearances addressing the merits of the quo warranto petition and impeachment-related matters while proceedings were pending.

Key Dates

Impeachment complaint filed: August 30, 2017 (House Committee on Justice).
Quo warranto petition against respondent filed and litigated concurrently.
Show Cause Order issued by the Court: May 11, 2018 (in the quo warranto decision).
Verified Compliance and Motion for Inhibition filed by respondent: June 13, 2018.
Administrative decision under review: March 25, 2019. Because the decision date is after 1990, the Court’s reasoning is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary legal regimes applied: the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC). The Court exercised its constitutional and plenary disciplinary power under the 1987 Constitution to regulate and discipline members of the Bar and the judiciary, treating violations of the sub judice rule and related conduct as administrative misconduct subject to the CPR and NCJC.

Factual and Procedural Antecedents

An impeachment complaint alleging culpable violations, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust was lodged against respondent. While impeachment proceedings were pending, the Republic filed a quo warranto petition challenging respondent’s eligibility. Throughout the impeachment hearings, the quo warranto litigation, and afterward, respondent repeatedly publicly defended herself—giving speeches, interviews, and participating in rallies—while initially declining to participate in congressional hearings and contesting the Court’s jurisdiction in the quo warranto case. The Court, observing persistent public commentary that addressed the merits of the pending case and criticized Court members, ordered respondent to show cause for possible violations of the CPR and NCJC, specifically for transgressing the sub judice rule and casting aspersions on Members of the Court.

Respondent’s Explanations and Arguments

Respondent advanced several defenses: (1) she was a party-litigant, not acting in capacity as counsel or judge, and therefore should not be judged by the stringent standards applicable to members of the Bar or the Bench; (2) her statements did not create a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice and public attention was inevitable given the controversy of the case; (3) her public remarks were part of her duty as a Justice and lawyer to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for legal processes; and (4) if any rules were breached, mitigating circumstances existed — namely, alleged personal attacks by the Solicitor General and alleged denial of due process — that justified her public responses.

Issue Presented

Whether respondent may be held administratively liable for her public statements and actions during the pendency of the quo warranto petition.

Motion for Inhibition — Court’s Ruling

The Court denied respondent’s motion to inhibit several justices on the ground that mere imputation of bias without basis does not warrant inhibition. The Court declined to depart from its prior analyses in the related quo warranto decision regarding the sufficiency of claimed grounds for inhibition.

Merits — Standards Expected of Lawyers and Judges

The Court rejected respondent’s argument that being a party-litigant exempted her from higher standards. It reiterated that lawyers and judges are held to high standards of morality, honesty, and propriety at all times. Membership in the Bar and, in the case of a sitting Chief Justice, leadership of the judiciary, impose continuing obligations: conduct must be above reproach, and any departure that tends to bring reproach on the profession or diminish public confidence in the judiciary can warrant administrative sanctions, including suspension or disbarment where warranted.

Merits — Sub judice Rule; Contempt vs Administrative Discipline

The Court discussed the sub judice principle (restriction on public comment regarding pending proceedings) and explained that, while contempt proceedings require proof of a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice, this administrative action is not a contempt prosecution. The Court clarified that the CPR and NCJC impose discipline independently of criminal contempt standards and that lawyers’ speech is subject to greater regulation given their relationship to the judicial process. Thus, the “clear and present danger” test applicable to criminal contempt did not control this administrative discipline; instead, alleged breaches of the CPR and NCJC were properly addressed in an administrative forum.

Merits — Findings on Respondent’s Public Statements

The Court found that respondent repeatedly violated the sub judice rule and related ethical canons by publicly commenting on the merits of the pending quo warranto case in a manner that: (i) attempted to influence public opinion and the Court’s deliberative process; (ii) imputed malice and ulterior motives to members of the Court; (iii) suggested that granting the quo warranto would produce dictatorship and destruction of the judiciary; and (iv) asserted a lack of fairness and impartiality in the Court’s processes. The decision catalogued multiple speeches, interviews, and forum appearances with direct quotations demonstrating these themes and concluded that the tenor and content of respondent’s remarks tended to tarnish the Court’s integrity and to cast unfair aspersions on its members.

Merits — Rejection of Defenses (Duty, Solicitor General’s Statements, and Due Process)

The Court dismissed respondent’s claim that her statements were a proper discharge of duty or were provoked by the Solicitor General’s prior comments. The Court distinguished permissible reiteration of a party’s position (as in cited precedents) from respondent’s public rhetoric, which went beyond legal argument to attack the institution and individual colleagues. Statements by the Solicitor General and by the press were regarded as either reiteration of the Republic’s position or protected press activity and did not justify respondent’s breaches; moreo

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC)

Citation and Nature of the Case

Report citation: 836 Phil. 166; 115 OG No. 12, 2668 (March 25, 2019).
Docket/administrative reference: A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018.
Matter: Administrative proceeding (show cause) arising from the Court’s 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).
Relief/prayer in this administrative matter: To determine whether respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno should be administratively sanctioned for public statements and conduct during the pendency of the quo warranto proceedings and related events.

Panel, Opinion and Concurrence

Decision authored by Justice Noel G. Tijam.
The decision is by the Court En Banc.
Justices Carpio (Senior Associate Justice), Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Leonen, Jardeleza, Martires, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo concur.
Notation: Velasco, Jr., J., no part (prior action in related case); Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official business; Justice Caguioa left his vote to concur in the result.
Judgment declared final and executory; no further motions for reconsideration or pleadings to be entertained.

Factual and Procedural Antecedents

On August 30, 2017, an impeachment complaint was lodged before the House Committee on Justice against respondent for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for quo warranto challenging respondent’s eligibility for the office of Chief Justice while the impeachment complaint was pending.
During the filing, pendency, and even after conclusion of the quo warranto proceedings, respondent repeatedly spoke publicly in universities, forums, television interviews, and rallies, addressing the merits and circumstances of the case.

Respondent’s Conduct During Proceedings (as found by the Court)

Respondent refused initially to participate in congressional hearings on the impeachment complaint.
Respondent refused to recognize the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the quo warranto petition.
Instead of confining her defense to judicial avenues, respondent engaged in a nationwide campaign of speeches, interviews, and public appearances.
Respondent’s public statements: criticized Congress members, cast aspersions on the impartiality of certain Members of the Court, attacked the dignity of the Judiciary, and imputed ill motives against the government.
The Court characterized respondent’s conduct as choosing to litigate before the public and media instead of the Court, resulting in doubt cast upon the Court’s impartiality and obstruction/obfuscation of issues in the quo warranto proceedings.

Show Cause Order and Administrative Proceeding Initiation

In the quo warranto decision (May 11, 2018), the Court ordered respondent to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating:
- The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
- The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC)
- For transgressing the sub judice rule and casting aspersions and ill motives against Members of the Court
The present administrative matter is an offshoot of the quo warranto case ordered by the Court to address disciplinary accountability.

Respondent’s Verified Compliance and Motion for Inhibition

On June 13, 2018, respondent filed a Verified Compliance to the Show Cause Order dated May 11, 2018, together with a Respectful Motion for Inhibition seeking inhibition of Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Noel G. Tijam, Francis H. Jardeleza, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Samuel R. Martires.
Respondent argued that the acts imputed against her do not amount to conduct unbecoming of a Justice and a lawyer warranting disbarment or disciplinary measures.

Respondent’s Principal Arguments / Defenses (as presented)

(1) Status argument: Respondent contended she was a party-litigant, not acting as counsel or as a judge, hence should not be judged by the stringent standards of the CPR and NCJC applicable to lawyers or judges.
(2) Clear and present danger: The imputed acts did not create a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice sufficient to justify contempt or disciplinary action; the quo warranto case was controversial and attracted public attention independent of respondent’s statements.
(3) Duty defense: Even if CPR and NCJC applied, respondent asserted that her public remarks were part of her duty as a Justice and lawyer to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for law and legal processes.
(4) Attendant circumstances and provocation: If violations occurred, they were mitigated because (a) the Solicitor General allegedly made repeated personal attacks and publicly discussed merits, compelling respondent to answer; and (b) respondent claimed she was denied due process despite alleged repeated demands.

Legal Issue Presented

May respondent be held administratively liable for her actions and public statements regarding the quo warranto case during its pendency?

Court’s Resolution on Motion for Inhibition

The Court denied respondent’s Motion for Inhibition as to the named Justices.
The Court reiterated that mere imputation of bias is insufficient ground for inhibition, especially when the charge lacks basis, and declined to re-litigate the inhibition grounds already addressed in the quo warranto decision.

Court’s Substantive Ruling — Administrative Liability

The Court answered the main question in the affirmative: respondent may be held administratively liable for her actions and public statements during the pendency of the quo warranto case.
The Court found respondent guilty of violating specific provisions of the CPR and NCJC (enumerated below) and meted the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning, with instructions regarding recordation and distribution of the decision.

Reasoning — Status as Lawyer and Judge; Standards Expected

The Court rejected respondent’s contention that being a party-litigant exempts her from the standards expected of members of the Bar and the Bench.
Key principles cited:
- Lawyers must conduct themselves with great propriety at all times; they may be disciplined for acts in private or public which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession.
- No division of personality: a lawyer cannot be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
- Judges and Justices are held to a higher standard: they must be embodiments of competence, integrity, and independence; conduct must be above reproach.
- Any errant behavior that shows deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity, or demeanor can warrant suspension or disbarment.
- The practice of law is a privilege conditioned on adherence to high standards; the Supreme Court, guardian of the legal profession, has plenary disciplinary power.

Reasoning — Sub Judice Rule, Contempt, and Administrative Discipline

Definition: sub judice refers to matters under or before a judge or court; the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings and applies especially to members of the Bar and the Bench.
Historical note: sub judice originated to protect juries from prejudicial publicity in jury systems; while the Philippines lacks a jury system, the sub judice rule remains relevant because judges and justices are also susceptible to media influence.
Statutory support: Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court (indirect contempt) punishes abuse or unlawfu