Jimenez v. Verano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Dante La Jimenez, Lauro G. Vizconde (Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption - VACC), and Atty. Oliver O. Lozano filed separate complaints against respondent Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. Respondent was representing Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson (the "Alabang Boys"), who were accused in cases for illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs under Republic Act 9165. The charges were dropped for lack of probable cause, leading to a Joint Inquest Resolution. Media reports alleged bribery and cover-up. During a congressional hearing, it was revealed that respondent had prepared a release order for his clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales. Procedural History: Jimenez and Vizconde complained to Chief Justice Puno, stating respondent admitted drafting the release order, using the DOJ letterhead without authority, and committing an unethical act. Atty. Lozano anchored his complaint on respondent's alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for showing disrespect for the law and legal processes. The IBP Cebu City Chapter condemned respondent's conduct. Atty. Lozano later withdrew his complaint, but the Court referred both cases to the IBP for consolidation and investigation. The IBP Board of Governors found respondent liable for improper and inappropriate conduct tending to influence a public official and recommended a warning. The Commission adopted this ruling. The Petition: The Court reviewed the IBP's Resolution finding respondent liable. The complainants were considered witnesses, and the withdrawal of Atty. Lozano's complaint did not preclude the proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. committed improper and inappropriate conduct tending to influence a public official. Whether respondent violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent violated Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. GUILTY of violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective immediately. This suspension also serves as a warning that repetition of similar offenses will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper and inappropriate conduct tending to influence a public official: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that respondent's actions constituted improper conduct. Respondent admitted to approaching the DOJ Secretary personally and causing the preparation of a draft release order on official DOJ stationery, with the intent of expediting the release of his clients. This conduct manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a government agency, which is precisely the type of behavior regulated by the norms for the bar. The Court emphasized that lawyers must actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case to maintain public faith in the judicial process. On the violation of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court agreed with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to hold respondent administratively liable under Canon 13, which 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." While Canon 13 specifically mentions "court," the Court clarified that other provisions in the Code prohibit influence-peddling in all venues within the justice sector, not just regular courts. Respondent's act of "feeding" a draft order to the DOJ Secretary for signature was found to be highly irregular and tended to influence a public official. On the violation of Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that respondent's actions also violated Rule 1.02, which states, "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." By attempting to expedite a case through irregular means, respondent's conduct could be seen as undermining confidence in the legal system. Furthermore, Rule 15.07 mandates a lawyer "to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness." Respondent's actions, in seeking special treatment rather than relying on the merits of his clients' case, fell short of this standard. The Court reiterated that zeal and persistence must be within the bounds of the law, and a lawyer's primary duty is to the administration of justice, not solely to the client.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's duty to the administration of justice is paramount and supersedes the client's success. Lawyers must scrupulously observe the law and ethics, avoiding any impropriety that tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the outcome of a case, even in administrative or executive venues.