Title
Supreme Court
Jimenez vs. Verano, Jr.
Case
Adm. Case No. 8108, 10299
Decision Date
Jul 15, 2014
Atty. Verano drafted a DOJ release order for clients accused of drug offenses, using official stationery, leading to complaints of unethical conduct and influence peddling. The Supreme Court suspended him for six months, citing violations of professional responsibility.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28202)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
  • Complainants Dante La Jimenez & Lauro G. Vizconde (A.C. No. 8108) and Atty. Oliver O. Lozano (A.C. No. 10299) filed separate complaints against Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr.
  • Verano represented Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson in PDEA cases for illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs.
  • Incident and Complaints
  • On December 2, 2008, a Joint Inquest Resolution dropped the charges against Brodett and Tecson for lack of probable cause and ordered their release.
  • Respondent prepared a draft release order on Department of Justice (DOJ) letterhead and stationery of Secretary Raul Gonzales, then delivered it to the Secretary’s office.
  • Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), founded by Jimenez and Vizconde, lodged a complaint for unethical conduct; Lozano filed a verified Complaint-Affidavit alleging violation of Canon 1 (upholding the law).
  • Proceedings before the IBP and the Court
  • The IBP Cebu Chapter condemned the respondent’s conduct and supported disbarment. Lozano later withdrew his complaint.
  • The Supreme Court consolidated both administrative cases and referred them to the IBP’s Committee on Bar Discipline.
  • Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III found respondent guilty of violating Canon 13 (impropriety tending to influence a public official) and recommended a warning.

Issues:

  • Liability
  • Whether drafting and presenting an unauthorized release order on DOJ letterhead to a DOJ Secretary constitutes improper conduct tending to influence a public official, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • Penalty
  • Whether the recommended warning is sufficient or a more severe penalty (suspension) is warranted given the nature of the misconduct.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.