Title
Dizon vs. Lambino
Case
A.C. No. 6968
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2006
UP student's death led to NBI's warrantless arrest attempt; legal counsel upheld law, preventing arrest. Atty. Dizon reprimanded, Atty. Lambino cleared.
A

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6968)

Facts:

  • Incident Leading to the Controversy
    • On December 8, 1994, during a rumble, University of the Philippines (UP) graduating student Dennis Venturina, the chairperson of the UP College of Public Administration Student Council, was killed.
    • The killing prompted the then Chancellor of UP Diliman, Roger Posadas, to seek assistance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
  • Involvement of the NBI and UP Officials
    • Acting on Chancellor Posadas’ request, Atty. Orlando V. Dizon, then Chief of the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the NBI, together with his men, proceeded to the Office of Col. Eduardo Bentain, head of the UP Security Force, on December 12, 1994.
    • At the time, two student-suspects—Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag—were present in the office of Col. Bentain.
  • Dispute Over Custody of Suspects
    • Atty. Dizon requested the surrender of the two students to his custody, asserting that under the UP Charter, the NBI was authorized to make warrantless arrests.
    • Atty. Marichu C. Lambino, Legal Counsel of UP Diliman and present at the scene, advised against surrendering the suspects due to the lack of a warrant for their arrest.
    • UP officials, including Chancellor Posadas and Vice Chancellor for Students Rosario Torres-Yu, also opposed the turnover of the students to Atty. Dizon.
    • Following a heated discussion in the presence of the suspects’ lawyer, Atty. Villamor, the students were allowed to return to their dormitories with the arrangement that they would report to the NBI the next morning.
  • Subsequent Legal Actions and Administrative Complaints
    • The two student-suspects were eventually indicted in court.
    • Atty. Dizon filed a complaint against Atty. Lambino before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violating Canon 1, Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CBD Case No. 346).
    • Concurrently, Atty. Dizon filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Lambino, Chancellor Posadas, Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu, and Col. Bentain before the Ombudsman for allegedly violating P.D. 1829, which prohibits obstruction of the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenses.
    • Atty. Lambino, in turn, charged Atty. Dizon with violations of Canon 1 (Rules 1.01, 1.02, 1.03), Canon 6 (Rules 6.01, 6.02), and Canon 8 (Rule 8.01) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CBD Case No. 373).
    • The administrative cases were consolidated on the motion of Atty. Lambino and brought before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).

Issues:

  • Issue Concerning Atty. Marichu C. Lambino
    • Whether her act of refusing to turn over the suspected students to Atty. Dizon constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • Issue Concerning Atty. Orlando V. Dizon
    • Whether his attempt to arrest the student-suspects without a warrant amounted to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, given the legal constraints affecting warrantless arrests.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.