Whether or not Estelito Mendoza committed an administrative case by

sending letters, is this an improper act of influencing the court?

[A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC : March 13, 2012] IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO
P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP) V. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.
(PAL), ET AL

On the case cited with the connection of the letters that are issued by Atty.
Mendoza, wherein there were four sent letters to the members of the Supreme
Court. For this position, we will focus on the improper act Estelito Mendoza did in the
cited case of FASAP v PAL. Canon 13 stated that a lawyer should rely upon the
merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence or
gives the appearance of influencing the Court. As we analyzed the acts of Atty.
Mendoza, he constitutes an indecent act that lessens the confidence of the public in
our Supreme Court. Furthermore, Atty. Mendoza showed doubt in terms of the
decision and who can handle all of the petition and issued letters especially when he
asked who is the in-charge of every Motion for Reconsideration that was analyzed
by the Supreme Court. Lawyers should avoid marked attention because they can be
subject to any misconceptions of motives in every case that they will handle.

In addition, Atty. Mendoza even sent the letters to the COC which is ex parte
from the Supreme Court, from the jurisprudence of Bumanglag v Bumanglag it cited
there that when a case is already within the jurisdiction of a court, the lawyer should
not seek the interference of another part or agency of the Government in the normal
course of judicial proceedings, because it can cause a misconception of motives on
what is your main goal to the case. We all know that every parties have a
constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in court and every citizen has a
profound personal interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to have
justice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of law free from
outside coercion. However, we should remember that according to In Re: Published
Alleged Threats by Atty. De Vera the judiciary department which is one of the branch
of the Government that tasked to administer justice, to settle justiciable
controversies involving enforceable and demandable rights, and to afford redress of
wrongs for the violation of our rights must be allowed to decide cases independently,
and importantly, free of outside influence or pressure. Nevertheless, Atty. Mendoza
should constantly remember that a lawyer should not communicate to the judge on
the merits of a pending case and should remember the separation of powers,
especially the power of every administrator of justice because it can imperil the
independence of judiciary.