Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 8108, 10299)
Petitioner and Respondent
• Petitioners (witnesses): Jimenez, Vizconde, and Lozano—who initiated complaints for professional misconduct
• Respondent: Atty. Verano, counsel for Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson in PDEA drug cases
Key Dates
• December 2, 2008 – Joint Inquest Resolution drops charges for lack of probable cause
• February 27, 2009 – Lozano withdraws his complaint
• June 2, 2009 – Supreme Court refers cases to IBP for investigation and consolidation
• April 16, 2013 – IBP Board adopts recommendation to issue a warning
• March 9, 2015 – Supreme Court En Banc resolution suspends respondent
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions)
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1; Canon 13; Rules 1.02, 15.06, 15.07
• Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Factual Background
Brodett and Tecson were charged with illegal drug offenses by the PDEA. The inquest prosecutor failed to establish probable cause, leading to dismissal of charges. Media reports of bribery and cover-up prompted congressional hearings, during which it emerged that Atty. Verano had drafted a DOJ Secretary’s release order on official letterhead—even though he lacked authority—to secure the immediate release of his clients.
Procedural History
Jimenez and Vizconde, through VACC, lodged an unverified letter complaint with Chief Justice Puno; Lozano filed a verified complaint alleging violation of Canon 1. The IBP’s Committee on Bar Discipline investigated under CBD Case No. 09-2356 and the Cebu Chapter condemned Verano’s conduct. Lozano later withdrew his complaint, but the Supreme Court allowed proceedings to continue.
Respondent’s Defense
Verano maintained the inquest resolution authorized release and that drafting the order was a zealous but harmless effort to expedite his clients’ freedom. He stressed that the draft remained unsigned and had no legal effect.
Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
Commissioner Abelita found that, despite unsubstantiated allegations, Verano’s own admissions confirmed he drafted and “fed” the order to the DOJ Secretary on official stationery without authorization. This impropriety tended to influence a public official in violation of Canon 13. A warning was recommended.
Supreme Court Ruling
- The Court may independently investigate lawyer misconduct; withdrawal by a complainant does not bar proceedings.
- Disciplinary cases focus on the attorney’s fitness for the bar, not the complainant’s interest.
- Ve
Case Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 8108, 10299)
Facts of the Case
- Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson (“Alabang Boys”) were charged by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165.
- On December 2, 2008, a Joint Inquest Resolution was issued dropping the charges for lack of probable cause.
- Media reports alleged bribery and cover-up in the investigation, prompting congressional hearings by the House Committee on Illegal Drugs.
- During one such hearing, it was disclosed that Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. had drafted a release order on Department of Justice (DOJ) letterhead bearing then-Secretary Raul Gonzales’s name.
- Dante La Jimenez and Lauro G. Vizconde (founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption) filed a complaint with Chief Justice Puno, alleging unethical use of DOJ stationery and unauthorized drafting of a release order.
- Atty. Oliver O. Lozano filed a separate verified complaint before the IBP’s Committee on Bar Discipline, alleging violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for disrespecting legal processes.
Procedural History
- Two administrative cases were initiated: AC No. 8108 (Jimenez & Vizconde) and AC No. 10299 (Lozano).
- Jimenez & Vizconde’s letter-complaint was unverified; Lozano’s complaint was docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2356.
- The IBP Cebu City Chapter passed a resolution condemning respondent’s conduct and supporting disbarment proceedings.
- On February 27, 2009, Lozano withdrew his complaint, citing overlap with Jimenez & Vizconde’s case.
- On June 2, 2009, the Supreme Court consolidated both cases and referred them to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- The IBP’s Board of Governors, via Joint Report and Recommendation (April 16, 2013), found respondent guilty of improper conduct and recommended a warni