Jimenez, Vizconde, Lozano Vs Verano

Adm. Case No. 8108/ Adm. Case No.
10299 July 15, 2014
DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE/ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO vs. ATTY. FELISBERTO L.
VERANO, JR.
Ponente: SERENO, CJ
Violation: Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Penalty: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
FACTS
Brodett and Tecson (identified in media reports attached to the Complaint as the "Alabang
Boys") were the accused in cases filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the
illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs. In a Joint Inquest Resolution issued on 2 December 2008, the
charges were dropped for lack of probable cause.
Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions during the
evaluation of the case, several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and "cover-up"
allegedly prevalent in investigations of the drug trade.This prompted the House Committee on Illegal
Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings. It was revealed during one such hearing that
respondenthad prepared the release order for his three clients using the letterhead ofthe
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales.
Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption (VACC), sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated that
respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a highly irregular
and unethical act. They argued that respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and
should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
The Complaint
Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on respondent’s alleged violation of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall upholdthe Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respectfor legal processes. Atty. Lozano contended that respondent
showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the said order and sending it to a
high-ranking public official, even though the latter was not a government prosecutor. Atty. Lozano’s
verified ComplaintAffidavit was filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP and docketed as
CBD Case No. 09-2356.
Officers of the IBP, Cebu CityChapter, issued a Resolution condemning the unethical
conduct of respondent and showing unqualified support for the VACC’s filing of disbarment
proceedings. On 27 February 2009, Atty. Lozano withdrew his Complaint on the ground that a similar
action had been filed by Dante Jimenez. On 2 June 2009, the Court referred both cases to the IBP for
consolidation, as well as for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Defense
In his Comment, respondent alludes to the Joint Inquest Resolution dropping the charges
against his clients for lack of probable cause, arguing that the resolution also ordered the immediate
release of Brodett and Tecson. He reasoned that the high hopes of the accused, together with their
families, came crashing down when the PDEA still refused to release his clients. Sheer faith in the
innocence of his clients and fidelity to their cause prompted him to prepare and draft the release
order. Respondent admits that perhaps he was overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of Justice approves
it, then everything may be expedited." In any case, respondent continues, the drafted release order
was not signed by the Secretary and therefore remained "a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all."
The Case
The Commissioner noted that both complaints remained unsubstantiated, while the
letter-complaint of Jimenez and Vizconde had not been verified. Therefore, no evidence was adduced
to prove the charges.
However, by his own admissions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Comment, respondent

drafted the release order specifically for the signature of the DOJ Secretary. This act of "feeding" the
draft order to the latter was found to be highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public official.
Hence, Commissioner Abelita found respondent guilty of violating Canon 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be issued a warning not to repeat the same or
any similar action.
Before this Court is the Resolution1 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) finding respondent Atty. Felisberto Verano liable for improper and inappropriate
conduct tending to influence and/or giving the appearance of influence upon a public official. The
Joint Report and Recommendation submitted by Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III recommended
that respondent beissued a warning not to repeat the same nor any similar action, otherwise the
Commission will impose a more severe penalty. The Commission adopted the said ruling on 16 April
2013.
Issue/s
Whether or not Atty. Felisberto be held administratively liable for the preparation of the draft release
order with stationery in order to expedite the relase of his clients
Held
We emphasize at the outset thatthe Court may conduct its own investigation into charges
against members of the bar, irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints brought before it. Thus,
a complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the
matter to the attention of the Court. By now, it is basic that there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these
proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a
member of the bar.
After a careful review of the records,we agree with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to
hold respondent administratively liable. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating
Commissioner, states that "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." We believe
that other provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of
influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the justice sector,
where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.
Respondent likewise stated that his "experience with Secretary Gonzales is, he is very
open;" and that "because of my practice and well, candidly I belong also to a political family, my
father was a Congressman. So, he (Gonzalez) knows of the family and he knows my sister was a
Congresswoman of Pasay and they weretogether in Congress. In other words, I am not a complete
stranger to him." Upon questioning by Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco, respondent admitted that he
was personally acquainted with the Secretary; however, they were not that close.
These statements and others made during the hearing establish respondent’s admission
that 1) he personally approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case was still pending
before the latter; and 2) respondent caused the preparation of the draft release order on official DOJ
stationery despite being unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of "expediting the case."
The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment
and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought
to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondentis duty-bound to actively avoid any act
that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the
people’s faith inthe judicial process is diluted.

Jimenez, Vizconde, Lozano Vs Verano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jimenez, Vizconde, Lozano Vs Verano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jimenez, Vizconde, Lozano Vs Verano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the complaint against the respondent?

What was the respondent's defense?

Adm. Case No. 8108/ Adm. Case No.

10299 July 15, 2014

However, by his own admissions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Comment, respondent

You might also like