G.R. No.

159486-88 November 25, 2003

PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL DIVISION], HON. MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO, HON. EDILBERTO
SANDOVAL, HON. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:
SHORT VERSION
 Atty. Allan Paguia, serving as counsel for the deposed President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, submitted a number
of motions before the Supreme Court seeking the dismissal of all pending criminal cases against his client
and assailing the unfavorable resolutions of the Sandiganbayan among others;
 That Atty. Paguia’s behavior during the course of hearing his petitions and motions, is perceived to be
unpleasant, unprofessional and unbecoming of a lawyer and officer of the Court. That despite calling his
attention to Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Paguia has persisted in
his boorish behavior and was unrelenting in making adversarial public statements;
 From the forgoing, the Supreme Court ordered that Atty. Paguia be suspended indefinitely from the practice
of law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

LONG VERSION
 Atty. Allan Paguia, the legal counsel for the deposed president Joseph Ejercito Estrada, filed a Petition for
Certiorari seeking the following relief:
1. That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the Honorable Court disqualify themselves
from hearing and deciding the submitted petition;
2. That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set aside; and
3. That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending before the Sandiganbayan be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
 Atty. Paguia first made his appearance for petitioner when he filed an Omnibus Motion on 19 May 2003,
before the Sandiganbayan and further asked that all criminal cases against his client be dismissed. On 2 July
2003, the Sandiganbayan issued an order denying the motion, as well as the motion to dismiss. Forthwith,
petitioner filed a ‘Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon’ of the foregoing order to which the Sandiganbayan DENIED
for lack of merit;
 Atty. Paguia, in the relation to the foregoing motions, have not limited his discussions to the merits of his
client’s case within the judicial forum and is said to have repeatedly assaulted the Court in both broadcast and
print media;
 Exhibiting other similar conduct towards the Court, the latter has strongly warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of
disciplinary sanction, to desist from further making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to the Court or
to its Members. Despite the warning, Atty. Paguia persisted in his behavior which prompted the Court to order
Atty. Paguia to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer
of the Court. On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with the show-cause order. In a
three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate display of defiance, repeated his earlier claim of political
partisanship against the members of the Court;
 The attention of Atty. Paguia has been called to the mandate of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
judicial officers. Further, Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar
from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in ignoring the Court’s well-meant admonition and has continued to
make damaging public statements despite the earlier warning;
 The Supreme Court ordered that Atty. Paguia be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law for conduct
unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Paguia violated Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of the bar from making public statements on
a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

In the present case, Atty. Paguia, in the relation to the petitions and motions he submitted before the Court, have not
limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s case within the judicial forum and is said to have repeatedly assaulted
the Court in both broadcast and print media. By his acts, Attorney Paguia may have stoked the fires of public dissension
and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the administration of justice.

Further, in liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of
the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation
of justice.

CONCLUSION:
The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.

WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt
hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.