Dizon v. Lambino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 8, 1994, Dennis Venturina, chairperson of the UP College of Public Administration Student Council, was killed during a rumble. The Chancellor of UP Diliman, Roger Posadas, sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). On December 12, 1994, Atty. Orlando Dizon, Chief of the NBI's Special Operations Group (SOG), went to the office of Col. Eduardo Bentain, head of the UP Security Force, where two student-suspects, Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag, were present. Atty. Dizon requested to take the suspects into custody. Atty. Marichu Lambino, Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, advised against the move, stating Atty. Dizon lacked a warrant of arrest. Chancellor Posadas and Vice Chancellor Rosario Torres-Yu joined Atty. Lambino in opposing the turn-over, despite Atty. Dizon's claim of the NBI's authority to make warrantless arrests under its Charter. The suspects' lawyer, Atty. Villamor, also appeared, and after a heated discussion, the students were allowed to return to their dormitories, with Atty. Villamor undertaking to bring them to the NBI the following morning. The two students were subsequently indicted. Procedural History: Atty. Dizon filed a complaint against Atty. Lambino before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CBD Case No. 346). Atty. Dizon had also filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Lambino, Chancellor Posadas, Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu, and Col. Bentain before the Ombudsman for violation of P.D. 1829. Atty. Lambino, in turn, charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CBD Case No. 373). The administrative cases were consolidated. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Lambino, finding she acted within her official duties and within the bounds of the law as the NBI agents had no warrants of arrest. Regarding Atty. Dizon, the Commissioner recommended a reprimand for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by "recklessly tr[ying] to arrest" the suspects without a warrant. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Commissioner's Report. The Petition: The cases were elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Lambino's act of refusing to turn over the suspected students to Atty. Dizon constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Dizon's act of attempting to arrest the student-suspects without a warrant constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Atty. Marichu C. Lambino (CBD Case No. 346) is DISMISSED. Atty. Orlando V. Dizon, in CBD Case No. 373, is found guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Lambino's refusal to turn over the suspects: The Court held that Atty. Lambino was legally justified in advising against the turn-over of the suspects to Atty. Dizon, as there was no basis for him to effect a warrantless arrest. The Court affirmed the ruling in Posadas v. Ombudsman, which held that the objection of the UP officials to the arrest of the students could not be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829 without rendering the law unconstitutional, as they had a right to prevent the arrest at the time because the attempted arrest was illegal. Therefore, Atty. Dizon's administrative complaint against Atty. Lambino was dismissed. On the issue of Atty. Dizon's attempt to arrest the suspects: The Court reiterated its holding in Posadas v. Ombudsman that for the failure of the NBI agents to comply with constitutional and procedural requirements, their attempt to arrest the two student-suspects without a warrant was illegal. The Court clarified that Section 1(a) of Republic Act 157 (The NBI Charter), which empowers the NBI to investigate crimes and make arrests, does not grant the NBI the power to make warrantless arrests. The Charter clearly qualifies the power to make arrests to be "in accordance with existing laws and rules." By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant, Atty. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Consequently, Atty. Dizon was found guilty and reprimanded.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. The NBI Charter does not grant the NBI the power to make warrantless arrests absent compliance with existing laws and rules. An attempt to arrest without a warrant, absent any lawful basis, is illegal and violates Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.