Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC)
Facts:
684 Phil. 489, En Banc, A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC (March 20, 2012), the Supreme Court, Per Curiam. The matter arises from administrative actions undertaken by the Court against practicing lawyers for misconduct in pleadings filed against members of the judiciary.The petitioning lawyer was Atty. Oliver O. Lozano; Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano was a co-respondent in the earlier disciplinary proceeding. The caption also references proceedings titled RE: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman and RE: Order of the Office of the Ombudsman referring the complaint of Attys. Oliver O. Lozano and Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano against Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (ret.), which formed the background to the Court’s disciplinary action.
On June 15, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution finding both Lozano and Lozano-Endriano guilty of grave professional misconduct for misquoting or misusing constitutional provisions in their pleadings in order to impute unjust acts to members of the Court, and imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. Subsequently, in an August 23, 2011 Resolution, the Court reinstated Atty. Lozano-Endriano, concluding that the circumstances indicated lesser culpability on her part.
After the June 15, 2010 suspension, Atty. Lozano filed multiple letters-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) seeking lifting of his indefinite suspension. The Court reviewed those letters-petit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court lift the indefinite suspension imposed on Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and reinstate him to the practice of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)