Jimenez vs. Verano

A lawyer who drafts official orders using government letterhead for signature by public officials and personally approaches such officials to expedite client matters, utilizing political connections, commits acts of improper influence-peddling that violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Respondent Atty. Felisberto Verano represented Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson (dubbed the "Alabang Boys") who were accused by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) of illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. On December 2, 2008, a Joint Inquest Resolution dropped the charges for lack of probable cause and ordered the immediate release of the accused. However, PDEA refused to release the detainees pending a direct order from the Secretary of Justice, prompting respondent to take extraordinary measures to secure his clients' freedom.

• Respondent Atty. Felisberto Verano represented Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson, collectively known as the "Alabang Boys," who were accused by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
• On December 2, 2008, a Joint Inquest Resolution dropped the charges against Brodett and Tecson for lack of probable cause and ordered their immediate release.
• Despite the dismissal, PDEA refused to release the accused unless it received a direct order from the Secretary of Justice.
• Respondent admitted drafting a release order for his clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales.
• He personally approached Secretary Gonzales with the parents of the accused to expedite the release, explaining that the families were distressed at the prospect of their children remaining detained during Christmas.
• Respondent admitted being overzealous in his representation and stated in his Comment that "if the Secretary of Justice approves it, then everything may be expedited."
• During the mandatory hearing, respondent testified that he prepared the draft to make it "convenient for signing authority" and that he was able to secure a meeting with the Secretary because of his political connections—his father was a Congressman and his sister was a Congresswoman of Pasay who served with Secretary Gonzales in Congress.
• The draft release order was never signed by the Secretary and therefore remained unimplemented.
• Media reports regarding alleged bribery and cover-up in the drug case investigation prompted congressional hearings where the drafting of the release order was revealed, leading to the filing of the administrative complaints.

• Jimenez and Vizconde, acting as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), argued that respondent committed a highly irregular and unethical act by drafting the release order and admitting to it, having no authority to use DOJ letterhead, and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
• Atty. Lozano contended that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by showing disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the order and sending it to a high-ranking public official despite not being a government prosecutor, thereby lessening confidence in the legal system.

• Claimed that the Joint Inquest Resolution ordered immediate release but PDEA refused to comply, causing distress to clients and their families who feared spending Christmas in detention.
• Asserted that sheer faith in clients' innocence and fidelity to their cause prompted him to prepare the draft release order.
• Admitted possible overzealousness but argued the draft was merely intended to expedite the process and was prepared to make it convenient for the signing authority.
• Maintained the draft order was never signed by the Secretary and therefore remained a "mere scrap of paper with no effect at all," causing no actual harm.
• Explained that Secretary Gonzales was accessible due to his political nature and that respondent's family had political connections with the Secretary, which facilitated the meeting.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the withdrawal of Atty. Lozano's complaint affects the continuation of the administrative case against respondent
  • Whether the Supreme Court may conduct its own investigation irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints or the interest of the complainants
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent's act of drafting a release order on DOJ letterhead and personally approaching the Secretary of Justice constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
  • What appropriate penalty should be imposed for such conduct given the IBP's recommendation of a mere warning

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that a complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party but merely a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention; therefore, the case may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest, lack of interest, or withdrawal of the charges.
  • The Court emphasized that there is neither a plaintiff nor prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, and the real question for determination is whether the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.
  • Citing Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, the Court ruled that if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of the complainant or withdrawal of the charges.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07 in relation to Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • Drafting the release order on official DOJ stationery and personally approaching the Secretary manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a government agency.
  • Such conduct tended to influence, or gave the appearance of influencing, a public official, thereby lessening confidence in the legal system and violating the prohibition against stating or implying ability to influence public officials.
  • The Court rejected the IBP's recommendation of a mere warning as a "mere slap on the wrist," finding it insufficient given the gravity of influence-peddling and the need to maintain public confidence in the legal profession.
  • The Court imposed a six-month suspension, applying by analogy the penalty imposed in Sylvia Santos v. Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua for similar acts of influence peddling.

• Nature of Disbarment Proceedings — Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are not civil suits where the complainant is a party, but rather investigations by the Court into the fitness of an attorney to remain a member of the bar; the complainant is merely a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention, and the proceedings may continue regardless of the complainant's withdrawal or lack of interest.
• Influence Peddling — Lawyers must refrain from any impropriety that tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing public officials; drafting official documents for signature by public officials and utilizing political connections to expedite matters constitutes improper influence-peddling violative of Canon 13 and related rules.
• Primary Duty of Lawyers — The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice, and any means not honorable, fair, and honest resorted to by a lawyer is condemnable and unethical even in the pursuit of client interests.

• "The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics."
• "Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical."
• "Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the bounds of the law."
• "The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant."
• "The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a government agency."

• Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos — Cited for the principle that withdrawal of complaint in disbarment proceedings does not exonerate the respondent and the case may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest or lack thereof.
• Sylvia Santos v. Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua — Applied by analogy to justify the six-month suspension penalty for acts of influence peddling involving solicitation of money to influence a case.
• Ylaya v. Gacott — Cited for the principle that the Court may conduct its own investigation into charges against members of the bar irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints.
• Pena v. Aparicio — Cited for the principle that there is neither a plaintiff nor prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
• Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol v. Florido — Cited for the principle that any means not honorable, fair and honest resorted to by a lawyer is condemnable and unethical.

• Republic Act No. 9165, Sections 5 and 11 — The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 under which the respondent's clients were charged with illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1 — Cited by complainant Lozano regarding the lawyer's duty to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for legal processes.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 13 — Prohibits impropriety which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court or public officials.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.02 — Prohibits counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 15.06 — Prohibits stating or implying ability to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 15.07 — Mandates lawyers to impress upon clients compliance with laws and principles of fairness.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 19 — Cited regarding the requirement that zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the bounds of the law.