DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE/ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO v. ATTY. TTY. FELISBERTO FEL ISBERTO L. VERANO, JR. JR . Adm. Case N. !"#!/Adm. Case N. "#$%%, J'( "), $#"*, SERENO, CJ Asdasd
Fa+sBrodett and Tecson, the “Alabang Boys”, were accused in cases fled by PDEA or Illegal sale and use o dangerous drugs. In a oint resolution, the charges were dro!!ed or lac" o !robable cause. Becaus Because e o the ailur ailure e o Prose Prosecu cutor tor #ohn #ohn $. $esado esado to as" as" clarif clarifcat catory ory %uestion %uestions s during during the e&aluation e&aluation o the case, se&eral se&eral 'edia outlets re!orted re!orted on incidents o bribery and (co&er)u!( allegedly !re&alent in in&estigations o the drug trade. This !ro'!ted the *ouse +o''ittee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings. It was re&ealed during one such hearing that res!ondent had !re!ared the release order or his three clients using the letterhead o the De!art'ent o #ustice D-# and the stationery o then /ecretary $aul 0on1ales. The co'!lainants #i'ene1 and 2i1conde 2i1conde sent a letter o co'!laint to +hie #ustice $eynato /. Puno. They stated that res!ondent res!ondent had ad'itted to drating the release order, and had thereby co''itted a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that res!ondent had no authority to use the D-# letterhead and should be !enali1ed or acts unbeco'ing a 'e'ber o the bar. Atty. 2erano anchore anchored d his +o'!laint +o'!laint on res!ond res!ondent3s ent3s alleged alleged &iolation &iolation o +anon 4 o the +ode o Proessional $es!onsibility. *e contended that res!ondent showed disres!ect or the law and legal !rocesses in drating the said order and send sendin ing g it to a high high)r )ran an"i "ing ng !ubl !ublic ic o5ci o5cial al,, e&en e&en thou though gh the the latt latter er was was not not a go&ern'ent !rosecutor. The deense o the res!ondent res!ondent is that the #oint In%uest $esolution $esolution dro!!ing dro!!ing the charges against his clients or lac" o !robable !robable cause ordered or the i''ediate release o his client and that he belie&es in sheer aith in the innocence o his clients and fdelity to their cause that !ro'!ted hi' to !re!are and drat the release order. That i the secretary signs the !a!ers then e&erything 'ay be e6!edited, and as it was without any sign it is a 'ere scra! o !a!er with no e7ect at all. The in&estigating in&estigating +o''issioner ound res!ondent res!ondent guilty o &iolating +anon 48 o the +ode o Proessional $es!onsibility and reco''ended that he be issued a warning not to re!eat the sa'e or any si'ilar action. The IBP Board o 0o&ernors 0o&ernors ound the res!ondent res!ondent liable or i'!ro!er and ina!!r ina!!ro!r o!riat iate e condu conduct ct tendin tending g to in9uen in9uence ce and:or and:or gi&ing gi&ing the a!!ear a!!earanc ance e o in9uence u!on a !ublic o5cial. $eco''endation was ado!ted by the IBP.
Isse-
;hether or not Atty.
R'0 =es, the res!ondent is ad'inistrati&ely liable. *e &iolated +anon 48 o the +P$. ;e belie&e that other !ro&isions in the +ode o Proessional $es!onsibility li"ewise !rohibit acts o in9uence)!eddling not li'ited to the regular courts, but e&en in all other &enues in the ustice sector, where res!ect or the rule o law is at all ti'es de'anded ro' a 'e'ber o the bar. /tate'ents 'ade during the hearing establish res!ondent3s ad'ission that 4 he !ersonally a!!roached the D-# /ecretary des!ite the act that the case was still !ending beore the latter> and ? res!ondent caused the !re!aration o the drat release order on o5cial D-# stationery des!ite being unauthori1ed to do so, with the end in &iew o (e6!editing the case.( The !ri'ary duty o lawyers is not to their clients but to the ad'inistration o ustice. To that end, their clients3 success is wholly subordinate. The conduct o a 'e'ber o the bar ought to and 'ust always be scru!ulously obser&ant o the law and ethics. Any 'eans, not honorable, air and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, e&en in the !ursuit o his de&otion to his client3s cause, is conde'nable and unethical. @eal and !ersistence in ad&ancing a client3s cause 'ust always be within the bounds o the law. A sel)res!ecting inde!endence in the e6ercise o the !roession is e6!ected i an attorney is to re'ain a 'e'ber o the bar. In the !resent case, we fnd that res!ondent ell short o these e6acting standards. 0i&en the i'!ort o the case, a warning is a 'ere sla! on the wrist that would not ser&e as co''ensurate !enalty or the o7ense. ;*E$E<-$E, in &iew o the oregoing, Atty.
