Jimenez v. Verano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Dante La Jimenez and Lauro G. Vizconde (Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption - VACC) and Atty. Oliver O. Lozano filed separate administrative complaints against respondent Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. Respondent was representing clients Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson, who were accused in cases filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs. The charges were initially dropped for lack of probable cause, but media reports alleged bribery and cover-up due to the prosecutor's failure to ask clarificatory questions. During congressional hearings, it was revealed that respondent 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 sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, stating that respondent's act of drafting the release order using the DOJ letterhead was highly irregular and unethical. Atty. Lozano filed a verified Complaint-Affidavit with the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2356, alleging violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for showing disrespect for the law and legal processes. The IBP Cebu City Chapter issued a Resolution condemning respondent's conduct. Atty. Lozano later withdrew his complaint, citing a similar action filed by Dante Jimenez. The Court referred both cases to the IBP for consolidation and recommendation. The Petition: The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent liable for improper and inappropriate conduct tending to influence and/or giving the appearance of influence upon a public official. The IBP recommended a warning. The Court, however, reviewed the case and found reasonable grounds to hold respondent administratively liable, disagreeing with the IBP's recommended penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. committed acts unbecoming a member of the bar and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by preparing a draft release order using the Department of Justice letterhead and stationery, with the intent to influence a public official. Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano should lead to the dismissal of the disbarment case.
Ruling
The 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. The resolution also served as an emphatic WARNING that repetition of any similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found respondent 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. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty based on his own admissions that he drafted the release order for the signature of the DOJ Secretary, which was deemed highly irregular as it tended to influence a public official. The Court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that lawyers must rely on the merits of their cause and refrain from any impropriety that tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing, the court or any public official. Respondent's act of preparing the draft release order on official DOJ stationery, with the end in view of "expediting the case," manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a government agency. This conduct falls squarely within the prohibition against acts that lessen confidence in the legal system and against stating or implying influence over public officials. The Court stressed that a lawyer's primary duty is to the administration of justice, and any means not honorable, fair, and honest, even in pursuit of a client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. The Court found that a mere warning was insufficient and imposed a six-month suspension. On Issue 2: The Court reiterated its ruling in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos that a case for suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the interest or lack of interest of the complainant, or even if the complainant withdraws the charges. The Court emphasized that a complainant in a disbarment case is merely a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention, and the proceedings are not between the complainant and the respondent. The real question is whether the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar. Therefore, Atty. Lozano's withdrawal of his complaint did not exonerate the respondent, and the case proceeded based on the evidence on record.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's conduct must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair, and honest, resorted to by a lawyer, even in the pursuit of devotion to a client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. Specifically, lawyers are prohibited from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system, and from stating or implying that they can influence any public official, tribunal, or legislative body. This duty extends to refraining from any impropriety that tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing, any public official or tribunal.