Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman

An indefinite suspension from the practice of law is not necessarily permanent; it may be lifted upon a showing that the purpose of the disciplinary penalty has already been served, particularly where the suspended lawyer has repeatedly acknowledged the error, demonstrated willingness to comply with professional standards, and no subsequent conduct casting doubt on fitness has been brought to the Court’s attention. Reinstatement may be granted with the expectation that the lawyer will avoid misusing legal provisions and will focus on promoting the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Atty. Oliver O. Lozano was a member of the Philippine bar subject to the Supreme Court’s disciplinary supervision. In the Court’s Resolution of June 15, 2010, he and Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano were found guilty of grave professional misconduct for misquoting or misusing constitutional provisions in pleadings that imputed unjust acts to Members of the Court; the sanction imposed was indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The present resolution concerned Lozano’s successive letter-petitions to lift that sanction, after Lozano-Endriano had already been reinstated on August 23, 2011 because of circumstances indicating lesser culpability on her part.

Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano were lawyers who had submitted pleadings in two proceedings. One was a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as OMB-C-C-09-0527 and entitled “Oliver Lozano et al. vs. Hilario Davide Jr., et al.,” filed against retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and retired Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez. The other was a complaint for impeachment filed before the House of Representatives, dated September 8, 2009 and entitled “Lawyers League of the Philippines vs. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.” In those pleadings, the Court found that the two lawyers misquoted or misused constitutional provisions in order to impute unjust acts to Members of the Court.

On June 15, 2010, the Court found Atty. Lozano and Atty. Lozano-Endriano guilty of grave professional misconduct and imposed on both the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The Court later reinstated Atty. Lozano-Endriano in its August 23, 2011 Resolution because of circumstances indicating lesser culpability on her part.

During the two years of his suspension, Atty. Lozano filed successive letter-petitions addressed to the Supreme Court En Banc, dated May 30, 2011, June 27, 2011, September 27, 2011, December 2, 2011, and February 20, 2012. In those letters, he repeatedly expressed willingness to admit his error, to observe the rules and standards in the practice of law, and to serve the ends of justice if reinstated. The Court had not been informed of any act during that period indicating that Atty. Lozano had engaged in unscrupulous practices unsuitable to a member of the bar.

• Rehabilitation and fitness for reinstatement: Atty. Lozano represented, through his successive letter-petitions, that he was willing to admit his error, to observe the rules and standards in the practice of law, and to serve the ends of justice if reinstated.

• Lifting of Indefinite Suspension: Whether Atty. Oliver O. Lozano’s indefinite suspension from the practice of law, imposed on June 15, 2010, should be lifted and he should be reinstated as a member in good standing.

• Lifting of Indefinite Suspension: Yes. The indefinite suspension was lifted based on the finding that the purpose of the disciplinary penalty had already been served, and Atty. Lozano was reinstated to the status of a member in good standing insofar as the suspension imposed by the Court was concerned.

• Lifting of Indefinite Suspension: Professional misconduct involving the misuse of constitutional provisions for the purpose of insulting Members of the Court was a serious breach of the rigid standards that members of the bar must observe, which justified the original penalty of indefinite suspension. Nevertheless, the Court would not prolong a penalty once its purpose had been served. In the two years of Atty. Lozano’s suspension, he repeatedly expressed willingness to admit his error, to observe the rules and standards of practice, and to serve the ends of justice if reinstated, and the Court had not been informed of any act indicating unscrupulous practices unsuitable to a member of the bar. The suspension was therefore deemed to have impressed upon him the need for care and caution in his representations as an officer of the Court. Reinstatement was granted with the expectation that he would avoid extreme contortions and misuse of legal provisions and principles, and instead direct his energies toward the lawyer’s primary aim of promoting the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• Corrective purpose of disciplinary suspension — An indefinite suspension from the practice of law is a disciplinary measure whose continuation must be justified by its corrective purpose. The Court will not hesitate to discipline its erring officers, but it will not prolong a penalty after it has been shown that the purpose for imposing it had already been served. In this case, the Court treated as sufficient evidence of rehabilitation the suspended lawyer’s repeated willingness to acknowledge his error and comply with ethical standards, together with the absence of any known unscrupulous act during suspension. Reinstatement was granted with the expectation that the lawyer would avoid misusing legal provisions and would work toward the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• "Professional misconduct involving the misuse of constitutional provisions for the purpose of insulting Members of this Court is a serious breach of the rigid standards that a member of good standing of the legal profession must faithfully comply with." — This passage defines the gravity of the original offense that warranted Atty. Lozano’s indefinite suspension.
• "While this Court will not hesitate to discipline its erring officers, it will not prolong a penalty after it has been shown that the purpose for imposing it had already been served." — This is the controlling rationale for lifting the suspension: discipline is corrective rather than purely punitive.
• "From Atty. Lozano’s letters-petitions, we discern that his suspension had already impressed upon him the need for care and caution in his representations as an officer of this Court." — This passage applies the corrective-purpose principle to the factual record of Lozano’s rehabilitation.

The Resolution was issued per curiam, and no separate concurring opinions were noted. The following justices signed: Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice; Antonio T. Carpio; Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.; Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Arturo D. Brion; Diosdado M. Peralta; Lucas P. Bersamin; Roberto A. Abad; Martin S. Villarama, Jr.; Jose Portugal Perez; Jose Catral Mendoza; Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno; Bienvenido L. Reyes; and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo was on leave.