Republic v.

Sereno

G.R. No. 237428

Facts: Sereno initially served as a faculty member of U.P. College of of Law, after having served U.P.
College of Law, she submitted an application for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In support of
her application, she submitted her SALN for 2006 that had no stamp, only those from 1985-2002 when
she was still in U.P. College of Law. The JBC did not entertain her application. Later on 2012 she was
appointed as Chief Justice but she still had not met the requirements. Five years after her appointment an
impeachment complaint by Atty. Larry Gordon was filed against her for culpable violation of the
Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust, the complaint also alleged her failure to
disclose her SALN. It was revealed during the hearings that she deliberately to file her SALN. The
Republic brought a quo warranto proceeding against for the validity of her appointment.

Issue: Whether or Not Sereno failed to show that she is a person of proven integrity.

Held: Yes, In Samson v. Judge Caballero, the Court dismissed a judge for "obvious lack of integrity" in
making a false statement in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS). Integrity is not only a prerequisite for an
aspiring Member of the Court but is likewise a continuing requirement common to judges and
lawyers alike. Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

CANON 2-INTEGRITY

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.

SEC. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but
that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in
the integrity of the Judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be
seen to be done.

SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against

lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may
have become aware.

The Code of Professional Responsibility, equally applicable to respondent being first and
foremost a lawyer, mince no words in requiring that a lawyer shall perform his
profession in a manner compatible with the integrity of the profession, thus:

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN

EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
 Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause
of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he
shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to
the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND

DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false

statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.

Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to
the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to
character, education, or other relevant attribute.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from those applicants who are incumbent
Associate Justices, absent which, The applicant ought not to have been interviewed, much less been
considered for nomination.

Instead of complying, she offered by way of letter that she would no longer be required to file the SALN
because she resigned from U.P. and resumed government service, thus is no continuous, her records are
more than 15 years, thus is infeasible to retrieve. But the Republic was able to present copies of her
previous SALN, therefore, not infeasible to retrieve.

She curiously failed to mention that she did not file several SALNs during the course of her employment
in U.P. Such failure to disclose a material fact and the concealment thereof from the JBC betrays any
claim of integrity especially from a member of the Supreme Court. Further, the failure to submit the
required SALNs means that the JBC and the public are divested of the opportunity to consider the
applicant's fitness or propensity to commit corruption or dishonesty
Blatant Disregard and Open Defianceto the Sub Judice Rule

The sub Judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in
order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of
justice. Thus, it is generally inappropriate to discuss the merits of and make comment's on cases
sub Judice and such acts may even result to contempt of court.

The sub Judice rule finds a more austere application to members of the Bar and of the Bench as
the strict observance thereof is mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Code of Judicial Conduct:

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CANON 13 - A 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.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against
a party.

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

CANON 1 –INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental

guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of
litigation or dispute pending before any court or administrative agency.

SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of
judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational
independence of the judiciary.

SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in
order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the
maintenance of judicial independence.

CANON 2 - INTEGRITY

Integrity is essentially not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.
 SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.

SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith
in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be
seen to be done.

CANON 3 – IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies

not only to the decision itself but to the process by which the decision is made.

SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession, and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary.

SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or

could come before them, make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the
manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in
public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

CANON 4 – PROPRIETY

SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept

personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges
shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of
the judicial office.

SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of

expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights,
they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve
the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of
the judiciary.

When the petition for quo warranto was filed she went on a nationwide campaign,
conducting speeches, making comments on the members of the Congress and
impartiality of the members of the Court. She confused the public’s mind that this fight
is for democracy.
In this case, it was found that respondent is ineligible to hold the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court position for lack of integrity on account of her failure to file a substantial
number of SALNs and also, her failure to submit the required SALNs to the JBC during
her application for the position.

When the Constitution and the law exact obedience, public officers must comply and
not offer excuses. When a public officer is unable or unwilling to comply, he or she must
not assume office in the first place, or if already holding one, he or she must vacate that
public office because it is the correct and honorable thing to do. A public officer who
ignores, trivializes or disrespects Constitutional and legal provisions, as well as the
canons of ethical standards, forfeits his or her right to hold and continue in that office.

Kyle Alexander P. Ceralde

Law 1-C