HUEYSUWAN FLORIDO v FLORIDO Facts: Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido (H-F) filed this administrative complaint against her husband James

s Florido for violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and usng a spurious and bogus ! resolution"order# H-F admits that she and her husband live separately# $hey have two children# %ometime in &ec# '((), Florido went to H-F*s house and showed her a photocopy of a resolution issued by the ! apparently giving to Florido the legal custody of their children# H-F doubted the authenticity of the ! resolution so she did not give her children to Florido# $hen in '((', while H-F and her children were in the !+ ,earning enter, Florido arrived accompanied by armed men# Florido demanded that H-F surrender custody of their children to him# H-F, fearing for her children*s safety, called the police# -n the police station, H-F agreed to let the children sleep with Florido .ust for one night at a hotel# +ut when H-F heard of news that Florido was planning to ta/e the children to +acolod, she immediately too/ them away# Florido then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of the ! resolution he presented to H-F earlier# $his petition was dismissed because Florido did not appear and H-F presented a certification from the ! that there was no resolution granting Florido with legal custody of their children# $hus, this present action# $he -+0 has recommended that Florido be suspended from the practice of law for 1 years# -ssue: 2"N Florido should be held liable for his actions# Held: % says that Florido should be held liable# He violated anon )( of the ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility, particularly 3ule )(#() and )(#(', by his act of ma/ing up a spurious ! resolution and using such false resolution to his aadvantage# $he % thin/s that suspension of 1 years is too much so they lowered the penalty to .ust a '-year suspension# ETERNAL GARDENS v CA Facts: %eelin spouses filed a case against entral &yeing for 4uieting of title# $he spouses won and the decision in their favor became final an e5ecutory# 2hen the spouses filed a 6otion for an -mmediate 2rit of 0ossession, 7ternal 8ardens 6emorial 0ar/ orp opposed claiming that it is the true and registered owner of the property9having bought the same from entral &yeing in good faith# -t also argued that it was not bound by the decision since it was not impleaded in the case# +ut the trial court favored the spouses and dismissed 7ternal 8arden*s claim since the .udgment (in the 4ueting of title case) was binding upon the latter, being the successor-in-interest of entral &yeing# $he !, on the same grounds, denied 7ternal 8arden*s appeal#

%o %eelin spouses filed for a second writ of e5ecution# &ahil sa ma/ulit (not to mention optimistic) si 7ternal 8ardens, nag-file pa ito ulit ng motion reconsideration# -t further contended that since there is a pending issue on possession (a different case), such should first be resolved before a writ of possession be issued to the spouses# %aid motion was initially granted but was later denied# %o nag-file ng certiorari si 7ternal sa !# !nd of course, they filed the case to the % , essentially with the same arguments#

-ssue: -s 7ternal 8ardens bound by the decision in the 4uieting of title case: Held: ;es# Having admitted that they bought the property from entral &yeing, 7ternal 8ardens is the former*s successor-in-interest who will be bound by the .udgment# 6oreover, being a transferee, it does not have to be included or impleaded by name in an action against the transferor9according to the 3ules of ourt# !s to the fear that owners of the grave lots will be disturbed by the writ, the order of the court shows that it too/ into account the interests of such lot owners9in fact certain limits were provided# Hence, the e5ecution of the .udgment need not necessarily desecrate these properties# <what*s relevant to ethics: $he case has delayed the e5ecution of a final .udgment for )= years# 2hile lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their client*s rights, they should not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to e5ert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of .ustice# $hey should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of .ustice or unduly delay a case, or impede the e5ecution of a .udgment# IN RE ALMACEN F! $%: !tty !lmecen is the counsel of alero in the case of ;aptinchay vs# alero $he trial court, after the hearing rendered .udgment against his client he moved for reconsideration (63) and served copy of the motion to the adverse party but failed to notify the latter of the date and place of the hearing -n the !, the court moved to also disamiss the case for the reason that the 63 does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing and is nothing but a useless piece of paper $he % refised to t/ae the cse and in a minute resolution denied the appeal -t was at this pont that !tty !lmacen filed his >07$-$-?N $? %@337N&73 ,!2;73A% 73$-F- !$7 ?F $-$,7> $he pleading filed by !tty !lmacen is interspersed from beginning to end with insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and deregoratory remar/s agaist the court, as well as its individual members#

!tty !lmacen described the court as >a tribunal peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas of .ustice, who ignore without reason thier own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the onstitution with impunity# he also referred to his client as >on who was deeply aggrieved by the courtAs un.ust .udgment> and has become > one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy#> He also referred to the member of the court as >.ustice as administered by the present members of the %upreme ourt is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb#> $he court as/ed !tty !lmacen to show cause why no disciplinary actions must be ta/en against him !tty !lmacen as/ed that he be given permission permission to give his answer in an open and public hearing# He reasoned that since the court is the complainant, prosecutor and .udge, he preferred that he answer and be heard in an open and public hearing sa that the court could observe its sincerity and candor# $he court allowed !tty !lmacen to file a written answer and thereafter be heard in an oral argument +ut his written answer offers no apology but is full of sarcasm and innuendo (%77 0!87 B1C-B=')

pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is of no conse4uence# $he sole ob.ective of the proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession# Kelly R. Wicker et. al v . !"#. $a%l T. Arca#&el F! $%: -t appears that on Nov )F, )CCG, 2ic/erAs counsel, !tty# 3ayos, filed a motion see/ing the inhibition of the respondent Judge !rcangel from the case# 3espondent .udge found offense in the allegations on the motion for inhibition filed by complainants and in an order, held them guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five (B) days and to pay a fine of 0)((#((# 0etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which respondent .udge denied for lac/ of merit in his order of &ec )=, )CCG# H7,&: $he power to punish for contempt is to be e5ercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle# ?nly occasionally should it be invo/ed to preserve that respect without which the administration of .ustice will fail# onsistent with the foregoing principles and based on the abovementioned facts, the ourt sustains Judge !rcangelAs finding that petitioners are guilty of contempt# !tty# 3ayos, however, cannot evade responsibility for the allegations in 4uestion# !s a lawyer, he is not .ust an instrument of his client# His client came to him for professional assistance in the representation of a cause, and while he owed him whole-souled devotion, there were bounds set by his responsibility as a lawyer which he could not overstep# +ased on anon )) of the ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility, !tty# 3ayos bears as much responsibility for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhibition as his client# !tty# 3ayosA duty to the courts is not secondary to that of his client# $he ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility en.oins him to >observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to .udicial officers and HtoI insist on similar conduct by others> and >not HtoI attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have materiality to the case#> RE' LETTER OF THE U$ LAW FACULTY ENTITLED (RESTORING INTEGRITY' A STATEMENT )Y THE FACULTY OF THE UNI*ERSITY OF THE $HILI$$INES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF $LAGIARISM AND MISRE$RESENTATION IN THE SU$REME COURT( Facts: ?n !pril 'F, '()(, the ponencia of Justice &el astillo in Jinuya, et al# v# 75ecutive %ecretary was promulgated# %ubse4uently, the counsel for Jinuya et al#, or K6alaya ,olasL, !tty# 3o4ue and !tty# +agares, filed a %upplemental 6otion for 3econsideration, where they posited for the first time their charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds to reconsider the decision# $hey also claimed that evidence bears out the fact not only of e5tensive plagiarism but also of twisting the true intents of the plagiariEed sources by the ponencia to suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying the 0etition# ?n that same day, some .ournalists posted an article, entitled >% .ustice plagiariEed parts of ruling on comfort women,> on the Newsbrea/ website# $he same article appeared on the 86! News $J website also#

-%%@7: 2"N !tty !lmacen is guilty H7,&: ;7%D and he is indefinitely suspended until further order form the % 2ell-recogniEed is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as citiEen, to criticiEe in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and .udges# $he decisions of the courts public property and the press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them, criticiEe and censure them as they see fit# +@$ it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety# ! wide chasm e5ists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and .ustices thereof, on the other# -ntemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts# -t is such misconduct that sub.ects a lawyer to disciplinary action -n his relations with the court, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citiEen at another# %tatements made by an attorney in a private conversation or in the course of political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring scorn and disrepute to the administration of .ustice may sub.ect the attorney to disciplinary action# 0ost-litigation utterances or publication made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their .udicial actions, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcends the permissible bounds of fair comments and legitimate criticism constitutes grave professional misconduct# $here is no comfort in the argument of !tty# !lmacen that his utterances were made after the .udgments against his client attained finality# He could still be liable for contempt as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal# $he

$hereafter, !tty# 3o4ue*s column, entitled >0lagiariEed and $wisted,> appeared in the 6anila %tandard $oday# -n the said column, !tty# 3o4ue claimed one of the authors purportedly not properly ac/nowledged in the Jinuya decision confirmed that his wor/ had been plagiariEed# ?n even date, Justice &el astillo wrote to his colleagues on the ourt in reply to the charge of plagiarism contained in the %upplemental 6otion for 3econsideration# 6eanwhile, another purportedly plagiariEed author in the Jinuya decision, &r# 6ar/ 7llis, wrote the ourt e5pressing his dismay# $he ourt, then, formed the 7thics ommittee and referred the letter of Justice &el astillo to the 7thics ommittee# $he 7thics ommittee re4uired !ttys# 3o4ue and +agares to comment on the letter of Justice &el astillo# !fterwards, a statement dated entitled >3estoring -ntegrity: ! %tatement by the Faculty of the @niversity of the 0hilippines ollege of ,aw on the !llegations of 0lagiarism and 6isrepresentation in the %upreme ourt> was posted in Newsbrea/*s website and on !tty# 3o4ue*s blog# ! report regarding the statement also appeared on various on-line news sites on the same date# $he statement was li/ewise posted at the @niversity of the 0hilippines ollege of ,aw*s bulletin board and at said college*s website# &ean ,eonen of @0 submitted a copy of the %tatement to the ourt# &uring the hearing of the ethics case against Justice &el astillo, the 7thics ommittee directed !tty# 3o4ue to present the signed copy of the said %tatement within three days from said hearing# -ndubitable from the actual signed copy of the %tatement was that only G= of the F) faculty members appeared to have signed the same# $he 7thics ommittee referred the matter to the ourt en banc the latter made the following observations that while the statement was meant to reflect the educators* opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against Justice &el astillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established fact, but a truth# -n particular, they e5pressed dissatisfaction over Justice &el astillo*s e5planation on how he cited the primary sources of the 4uoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the articles supposedly plagiariEed# +eyond this, however, the statement bore certain remar/s which raise concern for the ourt# $he first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Jinuya v# 75ecutive %ecretary as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest ourt of the land# 2hile most agree that the right to criticiEe the .udiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far# 6any types of criticism leveled at the .udiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attac/s# $he ourt could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty*s less than ob.ective comments e5cept to discredit the !pril 'F, '()( &ecision in the Jinuya case and undermine the ourt*s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration# !s if the case on the comfort women*s claims is not controversial enough, the @0 ,aw faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would

not reverse the said decision# $his runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the ourt to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this ourt, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have ta/en as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of .ustice# -ssue: %hould the respondents be reprimanded for their scornful remar/s against the esteemed ourt: &oes this constitute a violation of !N?N )G: Held: ;7%# $he ourt ruled that no matter how firm a lawyer*s conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is simply no e5cuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts and the legal profession into disrepute# $hat humiliating the ourt into reconsidering the Jinuya &ecision in favor of the 6alaya ,olas was one of the ob.ectives of the %tatement# -t is also proposed that the choice of language in the %tatement was intended for effective speechM that speech must be >forceful enough to ma/e the intended recipients listen#> ?ne wonders what sort of effect respondents were hoping for in branding this ourt as, among others, callous, dishonest and lac/ing in concern for the basic values of decency and respect# $he ourt fails to see how it can ennoble the profession if they allow respondents to send a signal to their students that the only way to effectively plead their cases and persuade others to their point of view is to be offensive# !s for the claim that the respondents* noble intention is to spur the ourt to ta/e >constructive action> on the plagiarism issue, the ourt has some doubts as to its veracity# For if the %tatement was primarily meant for this ourt*s consideration, why was the same published and reported in the media first before it was submitted to this ourt: -t is more plausible that the %tatement was prepared for consumption by the general public and designed to capture media attention as part of the effort to generate interest in the most controversial ground in the %upplemental 6otion for 3econsideration filed in the Jinuya case by !tty# 3o4ue, who is respondents* colleague on the @0 ,aw faculty# -n this regard, the ourt finds that there was indeed a lac/ of observance of fidelity and due respect to the ourt, particularly when respondents /new fully well that the matter of plagiarism in the Jinuya decision and the merits of the Jinuya decision itself, at the time of the %tatement*s issuance, were still both pending final disposition of the ourt# $hese facts have been widely publiciEed# -f it is true that the respondents* outrage was fueled by their perception of indifference on the part of the ourt then, when it became /nown that the ourt did intend to ta/e action, there was nothing to prevent respondents from recalibrating the %tatement to ta/e this supervening event into account in the interest of fairness# %pea/ing of the publicity this case has generated, the ourt finds no merit in the respondents* reliance on various news reports and commentaries in the print media and the internet as proof that they are being unfairly >singled out#> ?n the contrary, these same anne5es to the ommon ompliance show that it is not enough for one to criticiEe the ourt to warrant the institution of disciplinary or contempt action# $he ourt ta/es into account the nature of the

criticism and weighs the possible repercussions of the same on the Judiciary# 2hen the criticism comes from persons outside the profession who may not have a full grasp of legal issues or from individuals whose personal or other interests in ma/ing the criticism are obvious, the ourt may perhaps tolerate or ignore them# However, when law professors are the ones who appear to have lost sight of the boundaries of fair commentary and worse, would .ustify the same as an e5ercise of civil liberties, the ourt cannot remain silent for such silence would have a grave implication on legal education in our country# 2ith respect to the GB respondents named in the ommon ompliance, considering that this appears to be the first time these respondents have been involved in disciplinary proceedings of this sort, the ourt is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were for the most part well-intentioned in the issuance of the %tatement# However, it is established in .urisprudence that where the e5cessive and contumacious language used is plain and undeniable, then good intent can only be mitigating# !s the ourt e5pounded where the matter is abusive or insulting, evidence that the language used was .ustified by the facts is not admissible as a defense# 3espect for the .udicial office should always be observed and enforced# N%#e+ v Rica,"rt -./0 SCRA ./12 Facts: !n administrative complaint was by %oledad NuNeE, a septuagenarian represented by her attorney-in-fact !nanias +# o, Jr#, see/ing the disbarment of !tty# 3omulo 3icafort on the ground of grave misconduct# %ometime in ?ctober )CF', %oledad authoriEed !tty# 3icafort to sell her two parcels of land located in ,egaEpi ity for 0O(,(((# %he agreed to the lawyer )(P of the price as commission# !tty# 3icafort succeeded in selling the lots, but despite %oledad*s repeated demands, he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale# $his forced %oledad to file an action for a sum of money before the 3$ , QueEon ity# $he court rendered its decision ordering the !tty# to pay %oledad the sum of 0)1,((( as principal obligation, with at the legal rate from the date of the commencement of the action# !n appeal to the ! was made# However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the re4uired doc/et fee within the reglementary period despite notice# %oledad filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of e5ecution# +ut it appears that only a partial satisfaction of the 0)1,((( .udgment was made, leaving 0)G,F(( unsatisfied# -n payment for the latter, !tty# issued four postdated chec/s but was dishonored because the account against which they were drawn was closed# Hence, %oledad was forced to file four criminal complaints for violation of +#0# +lg# '' before the 6$ , QueEon ity# -n a .oint affidavit, !tty# 3icafort admitted having drawn and issued said four postdated chec/s in favor of %oledad# !llegedly believing in good faith that said chec/s had already been encashed by %oledad, he subse4uently closed his chec/ing account in hina +an/ing orporation, ,egaEpi ity, from which said four chec/s were drawn# He was not notified that the chec/s were dishonored# Had he been notified, he would have made the necessary arrangements with the ban/#

$he court re4uired !tty# to comment on the complaint# +ut he never did despite the favorable action on his three motions for e5tension of time to file the comment# His failure to do so compelled %oledad to file a motion to cite !tty# in contempt on the ground that his strategy to file piecemeal motions for e5tension of time to submit the comment Ksmac/s of a delaying tactic scheme that is unworthy of a member of the bar and a law dean#L $he -+0 findings show that the !tty# had no intention to KhonorL the money .udgment against him# -t recommended that !tty# be declared Kguilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainantL and be suspended from the practice of law for at least one year and pay the amount of the chec/s issued to the complainant#

-ssue: 2hether or not !tty# 3omulo 3icafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant# Held: YES. $here is a blatant violation of 3ule ):() of anon ) of the ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility which provides: ! lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct# +y violating 3ule ):() of anon ) of the ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility, !tty# diminished public confidence in the law and the lawyers# -nstead of promoting such confidence and respect, he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal profession# His act of issuing bad chec/s in satisfaction of the alias writ of e5ecution for money .udgment rendered by the trial court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of .ustice# His failure to ma/e good the chec/s despite demands and the criminal cases for violation of +#0# +lg# '' showed his continued defiance of .udicial processes, which he, as an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to uphold# $o further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts and .udicial processes, he even had the temerity of ma/ing a moc/ery of the court*s generosity to him# 2e granted his three motions for e5tension of time to file his comment on the complaint in this case# ;et, not only did he fail to file the comment, he as well did not even bother to e5plain such failure notwithstanding our resolution declaring him as having waived the filing of the comment# $o the % , !tty# openly showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its lawful orders# !tty# 3icafort then /nowingly and willfully violated 3ules )'#(O and )':(G of anon )' of the ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility stating that: ,awyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the e5ecution of a .udgment or misuse court processesM and that lawyers, after obtaining e5tensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an e5planation for their failure to do so# $he % indefinitely suspended !tty# 3icafort from the practice of law and directed to pay %oledad 0)G,F((# Sa#tia&" v . Ra,a#a# 3 L"4e+ Facts:

$his administrative complaint was brought by Jonar %antiago against !tty# 7dison 3afanan, a notary public, because of the latter*s failure to (a) ma/e the proper notation regarding the community ta5 certificate of the affiantsM (b) enter the details of the notariEed documents in the notarial registerM and (c) ma/e and e5ecute the certification and enter his 0$3 and -+0 numbers in the documents he had notariEed, all in violation of the 3evised !dministrative ode# %antiago also points out that 3afanan made an affidavit in favor of his (3afanan) client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he (3afanan) was actively representing his client# $he -+0 found 3afanan guilty of violating the re4uirements of the Notarial ,aw and imposed a fine of G,(((#

in cases for e.ectment of s4uatters in 6ascarinas* land, +unyi allegedly was the one who prepared the decisions and .udge simply signed them

-ssue: 2?N +unyi is guilty of unethical conduct Held: ;7% 3atio: letters show that he indeed prepared draft decisions for the .udge to sign does not matter if it was clearly shown that the .udge consented to such act or even as/ed for it violated canon G: attempts to e5ert personal influence on the court violated: o !N?N )G 9 ! lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court# 3ule )G#() 9 ! lawyer shall not e5tend e5traordinary attention or hospitality to, nor see/ opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with .udges# %@%07N&7& F?3 ! ;7!3# $RESIDENT 5OSE$H E5ERCITO ESTRADA6 SANDIGAN)AYAN petitioner, vs. THE HONORA)LE

-ssue: 2"n 3afanan*s acts were contrary to law# Held: % says yes# -t is mandated by the Notarial ,aw that a notary public should enter the number, place of issue and date of the ommunity $a5 ertificate of the affiant in his affidavit# $he law also says that a notary public should /eep a notarial register to record all affidavits they have notariEed# $hey are re4uired to enter the number of the register and the page where a particular affidavit has been recorded# $hese re4uirements are mandatory due to the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notariEed documents# Having violated these re4uirements, 3afanan should be fined# !s to the affidavit e5ecuted by 3afanan in favor of his client, the % says that this is in violation of 3ule )'#(F of anon )', which says that a lawyer should avoid testifying in behalf of his own client# $he % e5plained that appearing both as counsel and witness of a client will provo/e un/ind criticism and leave many people to suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as disinterested# ?bviously, if a lawyer appears as client and counsel, people would automatically thin/ that his testimony as a witness is biased in favor of his client# &espite of this, 3afanan cannot be made administratively liable# First, the % considered that it is the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense for the benefit of the client# $hus, in defense of his client, 3afanan is supposed to do everything in his power# %ince, he is a witness to the crime, his affidavit is essential to the defense of his client# 2hat he should have done though was to e5empt himself from being counsel# $his would ensure his credibility as a witness# -n the end, because of his violation of the Notarial ,aws and anon B of the ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility, 3afanan is fined G,(((# La#t"ria v . )%#yi Facts: esar ,antoria sought disciplinary action against +unyi, counsel for 6rs# onstancia 6ascarinas in certain civil cases !llegedly committed acts of >graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the -ntegrated +ar of the 0hilippines, and corruption of the .udge (Jicente 8alicia of 7speranEa, !gusan del %ur) and bribery

Facts: !ttorney !lan F# 0aguia, as counsel for 7strada, averred that the respondent .ustices have violated 3ule B#)( of the ode of Judicial onduct by attending the R7&%! ' 3ally* and by authoriEing the assumption of Jice-0resident 8loria 6acapagal !rroyo to the 0residency in violation of the )CF= onstitution# o K3ule B#)(# ! .udge is entitled to entertain personal views on political 4uestions# +ut to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a .udge shall not ma/e political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities#L !lso, petitioner contended that the .ustices have pre.udged a case that would assail the legality of the act ta/en by 0resident !rroyo# $he subse4uent decision of the ourt in 7strada v# !rroyo (GBG % 3! OB' and GB1 % 3! )(F) is, petitioner states, a patent moc/ery of .ustice and due process# !ccording to !tty# 0aguia, during the hearing of his R6osyong 0angre/onsiderasyon* on )) June '((G, the three .ustices of the %pecial &ivision of the %andiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality against his client# $hus, he averred, 0residing Justice 6inita J# hico-NaEario supposedly employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted out, R6agmumu/ha naman /aming gago,* (3ollo, p# )G#) and Justice $eresita ,eonardo-&e astro characteriEed the motion as insignificant even before the prosecution could file its comments or opposition thereto, (3ollo, p# )'#) remar/ing in open court that to grant 7strada*s

motion would result in chaos and disorder# (Ibid.) 0rompted by the alleged Rbias and partial attitude* of the %andiganbayan .ustices, !ttorney 0aguia filed, on )O July '((G, a motion for their dis4ualification# $he petitioner also as/ed the ourt to include in its Joint 3esolution the $3@$H of the acts of hief Justice &avide, et al#, last January '(, '(() in: a# going to 7&%! 'M b# authoriEing the proclamation of Jice-0resident !rroyo as 0resident on the ground of permanent disability* even without proof of compliance with the corresponding constitutional conditions, e#g#, written declaration by either the 0resident or ma.ority of his cabinetM and c# actually proclaiming Jice-0resident !rroyo on that same ground of permanent disability# -n a letter, dated G( June '((G, addressed to hief Justice Hilario 8# &avide, Jr#, and !ssociate Justice !rtemio J# 0anganiban, he has demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum shopping, for several advisory opinions on matters pending before the %andiganbayan# %ubse4uently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing the foregoing orders must be &-%6-%%7& for gross insufficiency in substance and for utter lac/ of merit# $he %andiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an indispensable re4uirement to warrant recourse to the e5traordinary relief of petition for certiorari under 3ule 1B of the 3evised 3ules of ivil 0rocedure# -n a resolution, dated (F July '((G, the ourt strongly warned !ttorney !lan 0aguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from further ma/ing, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this ourt or to its 6embers# @nmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the ourt, !ttorney 0aguia appears to persist on end# o -n fact, on the =th %eptember '((G issue of the &aily $ribune, !tty# 0aguia wrote to say - What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estradas right to due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arro o unconstitutional and void. !he rudi"ents of fair pla were not observed. !here was no fair pla since it appears that when President Estrada filed his petition# $hief %ustice &avide and his fellow 'ustices had alread co""itted to the other part ( )*A ( with a 'udg"ent alread "ade and waiting to be for"ali+ed after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a for"al hearing. After the 'ustices had authori+ed the procla"ation of )*A as president# can the be e,pected to voluntaril ad"it the unconstitutionalit of their own act?ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility#

limited his discussions to the merits of his client*s case within the .udicial forum# -ndeed, he has repeated his assault on the ourt in both broadcast and print media# o .ule /0.12 of the $ode of Professional .esponsibilit prohibits a "e"ber of the bar fro" "a3ing such public state"ents on an pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a part . 4 his acts# Attorne Paguia "a have sto3ed the fires of public dissension and posed a potentiall dangerous threat to the ad"inistration of 'ustice.-t should be clear that the phrase Kpartisan political activities,L in its statutory conte5t, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the defeat of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates of candidacy to a public office in an election# $he ta/ing of an oath of office by any incoming 0resident of the 3epublic before the hief Justice of the 0hilippines is a traditional official function of the Highest 6agistrate# $he assailed presence of other .ustices of the ourt at such an event could be no different from their appearance in such other official functions as attending the !nnual %tate of the Nation !ddress by the 0resident of the 0hilippines before the ,egislative &epartment# $he %upreme ourt does not claim infallibilityM but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people*s faith in the .udicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the 0hilippines# anon )) of the ode of 0rofessional 3esponsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and .udicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others# -n liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and 4uestioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the ourt, !tty# 0aguia has only succeeded in see/ing to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of .ustice# $he ourt has already warned !tty# 0aguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the ourt# !pparently, he has chosen not to at all ta/e heed# 2H737F?37, !ttorney !lan 0aguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the ourt#

-ssue: 2?N !tty# 0aguia committed a violation of the Held:

riticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the ourt would be welcome for, if wellfounded, such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed# (-n 3e %otto, F' 0hil BCB#) However, !ttorney 0aguia has not