Professional Documents
Culture Documents
uprtmt Ql:ourt
;fffilanila
ENBANC
. -versus-
x--------------------------x
ATTY. OLIVER 0. LOZANO, Adm. Case No. 10299
Complainant,
Present:
-versus- SERENO, C.J,
CARPIO,
ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, VELASCO, JR.,*
JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
Respondent. BRION**
'
PERALTA,*
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES·
'
PERLAS-BERNABE, and
LEONEN,JJ
Promulgated:
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -}(
• On official leave.
•• On leave. ·
Resolution 1 Adm. Case Nos. 8108 & 10299
RESOLUTION
SERENO, CJ:
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
1
Rollo (A.C. No. 8108), pp. 200-203.
2 Id. at 200.
3 In violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
4
Rollo (A.C. No. 8108), pp. 57-79.
5 Id. at 8-9; Resolution Condemning the Improper and Highly Unethical Conduct of Lawyer Felisberto
Verano, Jr. issued by the IBP, Cebu City Chapter.
letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the
bar.6
RESPONDENT’S VERSION
6 Id. at 1.
7
Rollo (A.C. No. 10299), p. 2.
8
Id. at 3.
9
Rollo (A.C. No. 8108), p. 201.
10
Supra note 5.
11
Rollo (A.C. No. 10299), p. 39.
12
Rollo (A.C. No. 8108), pp. 43-53; Comment.
13
Id. at 46-47.
14 Id.
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.15
We emphasize at the outset that the 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.16 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.17
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.
xxxx
19
Rollo (A.C. No. 8108), pp. 171-175; Transcript of Stenographic Notes, 4 November 2009.
20
Id. at 155-156.
21
Id at 156.
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. Respondent is 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 in the judicial process is diluted.
Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system."
Further, according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is
able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.” The
succeeding rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a lawyer “to impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.”
In Sylvia Santos vs. Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya- Chua, the Court saw fit
to impose a six-month suspension against a judge who likewise committed
acts of influence peddling when she solicited 100,000.00 from
complainant Santos when the latter asked for her help in the case of her
friend Emerita Muñoz, who had a pending case with the Supreme
Court, because respondent judge was a former court attorney of the high
court.24 We find that the same penalty is appropriate in the present case.
22 Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol v. Florido, A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 182, 187.
23 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 19.
24 A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2312-RTJ), February 13, 2009.
Resolution 7 Adm. Case Nos. 8108 & 10299
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
v
·J.
JR.
Associate Justice .
JOSE CA NDOZA
As dJi; ; J dce
//""'"
,;/
{ -vt t
JAa, l..vJ/
BIENVENIDO L. ESTELA : PERLAS-BERNABE
REYES Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Associate Justice