A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC - Lozano vs. Supreme Court

Case Summary (A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC)

Factual Background

Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano filed pleadings that, according to the Court, misquoted or misused constitutional provisions in order to impute unjust acts to members of the Supreme Court. The pleadings included a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, entitled Oliver Lozano et al. v. Hilario Davide Jr., et al., OMB-C-C-09-0527, and a Complaint for Impeachment filed before the House of Representatives, entitled Lawyers League of the Philippines v. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, dated September 8, 2009.

Prior Disciplinary Proceedings

In its Resolution dated June 15, 2010, the Court found Atty. Lozano and Atty. Lozano-Endriano guilty of grave professional misconduct for the misuse and misquotation of constitutional provisions in their pleadings, conduct that the Court described as intended to impute unjust acts to Members of the Court. The Court imposed on both attorneys the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

Subsequent Developments Concerning Lozano-Endriano

The Court reconsidered the relative culpability of Atty. Lozano-Endriano and, in its Resolution of August 23, 2011, reinstated her to the bar. The Court found circumstances indicating lesser culpability on her part and therefore relieved her from the indefinite suspension previously imposed.

Lozano’s Letters-Petitions for Reinstatement

During the period of suspension, Atty. Lozano submitted a series of letters-petitions to the Court requesting the lifting of his indefinite suspension. Those letters, dated May 30, 2011; June 27, 2011; September 27, 2011; December 2, 2011; and February 20, 2012, repeatedly expressed his willingness to admit error, to observe the rules and standards of the legal profession, and to serve the ends of justice if reinstated.

The Court’s Observations on Lozano’s Conduct During Suspension

The Court observed that, throughout the two years of suspension, it had not been informed of any act by Atty. Lozano that would indicate engagement in unscrupulous practices unsuitable to a member of the bar. The Court further noted that the suspension had impressed upon him the need for caution in his representations as an officer of the Court.

The Court’s Reasoning for Lifting the Suspension

The Court affirmed that professional misconduct involving the misuse of constitutional provisions to insult Members of the Court constituted a serious breach warranting discipline. It nonetheless recognized that the purpose of discipline is partly corrective; when the penalty has served that purpose and the contemnor manifests reform and restraint, the Court will not prolong a sanction unduly. Given Atty. Lozano’s expressed contrition, assurances of adherence to professional standards, and the absence of evidence of further misconduct during the suspension period, the Court concluded that continued suspension was no longer necessary.

Disposition

The Court, en banc and per curiam, granted Atty. Lozano’s letters-petitions. The Court lifted the indefinite suspension previously imposed on him and reinstated him to the status of a member in good standing insofar as the suspension imposed by this Court was concerned. The Court conditioned its action on the expectation that Atty. Lozano would refrain from contorting or misusing legal provisions and would instead dedicate his efforts to promoting the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The Resolution concluded

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Atty. Oliver O. Lozano filed successive letters-petitions addressed to the Supreme Court en banc seeking the lifting of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano was the co-respondent in the earlier disciplinary proceeding that led to the same suspension.
The disciplinary measures arose from complaints originating at the Office of the Ombudsman and other public filings that implicated members of the Court.
The Court previously issued a Resolution dated June 15, 2010 that found both attorneys guilty of misconduct and imposed indefinite suspension.
The Court issued a subsequent Resolution dated August 23, 2011 that reinstated Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano due to circumstances indicating lesser culpability on her part.
The present resolution of March 20, 2012, under A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC, resolves the letters-petitions of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and lifts his suspension.

Key Factual Allegations

Atty. Oliver O. Lozano was found to have misquoted and misused constitutional provisions in pleadings for the purpose of imputing unjust acts to members of the Court.
The pleadings included a criminal complaint before the Ombudsman, docketed as OMB-C-C-09-0527, and a Complaint for Impeachment filed before the House of Representatives, entitled Lawyers League of the Philippines v. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, dated September 8, 2009.
The Court characterized the misuse of constitutional provisions to insult Members of the Court as conduct amounting to grave professional misconduct.
During the two-year period of suspension, Atty. Lozano repeatedly expressed willingness to admit error, to observe professional rules, and to serve the ends of justice if reinstated.
The Court reported that it had not been informed of any subsequent acts by Atty. Lozano indicating unscrupulous practices unsuitable for a member of the bar.

Procedural History

The Court issued a finding of guilt and imposed indefinite suspension on June 15, 2010.
Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano was reinstated by the Court on August 23, 2011 after a reassessment of her relative culpability.
Atty. Oliver O. Lozano filed letters-petitions dated May 30, 2011, June 27, 2011, September 27, 2011, December 2, 2011, and February 20, 2012, requesting lifting of the suspension.
The Court resolved those letters-petitions by Resolution dated March 20, 2012, lifting the suspension and reinstating Atty. Lozano to the status of a member in good standing insofar as the suspension was concerned.

Issues Presented

The primary issue was whether the Court should continue the indefinite suspension imposed on Atty. Oliver O. Lozano for grave professional misconduct.
A related issue was whether the purp