Other Projects

Featured Document of the

Foundation
Re: Show cause order in the decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428
(Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose Calida
v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno)
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC. July 17, 2018

The administrative matter is an offshoot of Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno, Gr. 237428, or the quo warranto case or proceedings
against the respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. The issue that arose was whether the respondent can be held administratively
liable for her actions and public statements as regards the quo warranto cause against her during pendency. The court found that the
respondent was guilty of violating Canon 13, Rule Case 13.02, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Section 3, 7
and 8 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2. Sections 2 and 4 of Canon 3, and Sections 2 and 6 of Canon 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary; and was meted the penalty of reprimand, in lieu of suspension, with a stern warning that a
repeatition of a similar offense violative of the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility shall merit the heavier penalty
of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment.
Featured Document

Other Projects of
the Foundation

Re: Show cause order in the decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428
(Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose Calida
v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno)
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC. July 17, 2018

The administrative matter is an offshoot of Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno, Gr. 237428, or the quo warranto case or
proceedings against the respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. The issue that arose was whether the respondent can be
held administratively liable for her actions and public statements as regards the quo warranto cause against her during
pendency. The court found that the respondent was guilty of violating Canon 13, Rule Case 13.02, and Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, Section 3, 7 and 8 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2. Sections 2 and 4 of Canon 3, and
Sections 2 and 6 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary; and was meted the penalty of
reprimand, in lieu of suspension, with a stern warning that a repeatition of a similar offense violative of the Lawyers Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility shall merit the heavier penalty of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment.
Featured Document

Other Projects of
the Foundation
Re: Show cause order in the decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428
(Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose Calida
v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno)
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC. July 17, 2018

The administrative matter is an offshoot of Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno, Gr. 237428, or the quo warranto case or
proceedings against the respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. The issue that arose was whether the respondent can be
held administratively liable for her actions and public statements as regards the quo warranto cause against her during
pendency. The court found that the respondent was guilty of violating Canon 13, Rule Case 13.02, and Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, Section 3, 7 and 8 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2. Sections 2 and 4 of Canon 3, and
Sections 2 and 6 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary; and was meted the penalty of
reprimand, in lieu of suspension, with a stern warning that a repeatition of a similar offense violative of the Lawyers Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility shall merit the heavier penalty of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment.
Featured Document

Other Projects of
the Foundation

Re: Show cause order in the decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428
(Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose Calida
v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno)
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC. July 17, 2018

The administrative matter is an offshoot of Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno, Gr. 237428, or the quo warranto case or
proceedings against the respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. The issue that arose was whether the respondent can be
held administratively liable for her actions and public statements as regards the quo warranto cause against her during
pendency. The court found that the respondent was guilty of violating Canon 13, Rule Case 13.02, and Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, Section 3, 7 and 8 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2. Sections 2 and 4 of Canon 3, and
Sections 2 and 6 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary; and was meted the penalty of
reprimand, in lieu of suspension, with a stern warning that a repeatition of a similar offense violative of the Lawyers Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility shall merit the heavier penalty of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment.