THIRD DIVISION
|
ATTY. Complainant, - versus - ATTY. MARICHU C. LAMBINO, Respondent. x-----------------------------------------x ATTY.
MARICHU C. LAMBINO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY.
Respondent. |
A.C. No. 6968
Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The killing during a rumble on
December 8, 1994 of University of the Philippines (UP) graduating student
Dennis Venturina, the chairperson of the UP College
of Public Administration Student Council, drew the then Chancellor of UP Diliman Roger Posadas to seek the
assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Acting on the request of Chancellor Posadas, Atty. Orlando Dizon,
then Chief of the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the NBI, together with his
men, repaired to the Office of Col. Eduardo Bentain, head
of the UP Security Force on
As two student-suspects in the
killing, Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag, were at the time in
the office of Col. Bentain, Atty. Dizon
requested to take them into his custody.
Atty. Marichu Lambino,
Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, who repaired to the
Office of Col. Bentain, advised against Atty. Dizon’s move, however, he not being armed with a warrant for
their arrest.
Chancellor Posadas
and Vice Chancellor for students Rosario Torres-Yu, who also repaired to the office
of the colonel, joined Atty. Lambino in opposing the
turn-over of the suspects to Atty. Dizon, despite the
latter’s claim that under its Charter the NBI was authorized to make warrantless arrests.
The suspects’ lawyer, one Atty. Villamor, later also showed up at the office of Col. Bentain and after what appeared to be a heated discussion between
Atty. Dizon and the UP officials, the students were allowed
to go back to their dormitories, with Atty. Villamor
undertaking to accompany them to the NBI the following morning.
The two student-suspects were
eventually indicted in court.
Hence, spawned the filing of a complaint
by Atty. Dizon against Atty. Lambino
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for violation of Canon 1,
Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, docketed as CBD
Case No. 346.
Atty. Dizon
had earlier filed a criminal complaint also against Atty. Lambino,
together with Chancellor Posadas and Vice Chancellor
Torres-Yu and Col. Bentain, before the Ombudsman, for
violation of P.D. 1829 which makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the
apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenses.
Atty. Lambino
in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
1.02, and 1.03; Canon 6, Rules 6.01 and
6.02; and Canon 8, Rule 8.01, docketed as CBD Case No. 373.
The administrative cases were, on
motion of Atty. Lambino, consolidated. Before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD), the issues were defined as follows:
1. Whether the act of Atty. Lambino in refusing to turn over the suspected students to the group of Atty. Dizon constitutes violation of Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. Whether the act of Atty. Dizon in trying to arrest the student-suspects constitutes violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
By Report and Recommendation
submitted to the Board of Governors of the IBP on June 20, 2005, CBD Investigating
Commissioner Siegfrid B. Mison
recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Lambino
in light of a finding that she “acted within her official duties as she
safeguarded the rights of the students in accordance with the school’s
substitute parental authority” and “within the bounds of the law as the NBI
agents had no warrants of arrest.”
With respect to the complaint against
Atty. Dizon, the Commissioner recommended to reprimand
him for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in “recklessly tr[ying] to arrest” the suspects
without warrant.
The IBP Board of Governors, by
Resolution of
As earlier stated, the issue against
Atty. Lambino is whether she violated the Canons of
Professional Ethics in “refusing to turn over the suspected students to the
group of Atty. Dizon.”
When the
complaint of Atty. Dizon before the Ombudsman against
Chancellor Posadas, Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu and Atty.
Lambino was elevated on Certiorari and Prohibition,
this Court addressing in the negative the two issues raised therein, to wit:
(1) Whether the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the NBI could be validly made without a warrant; and (2) Whether there was probable cause for prosecuting petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 1829. x x x,[1]
held that the objection of the said UP
officials to the arrest of the students “cannot be construed as a violation of
P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1 (c) without rendering it unconstitutional,”[2]
they having “a right to prevent the arrest [of the students] at the time
because their attempted arrest was illegal.”[3]
Indeed,
Atty. Lambino was legally justified in advising
against the turn over of the suspects to Atty. Dizon,
there being no basis for him to effect a warrantless
arrest. Atty. Dizon’s
administrative complaint against her must then be dismissed.
Respecting
the complaint against Atty. Dizon, this Court, also
in Posadas v. Ombudsman, held that “[f]or the
failure of the NBI agents to comply with the constitutional and procedural
requirements, . . . their attempt to
arrest [the two student-suspects] without a warrant was illegal.”[4]
In the
main, Atty. Dizon invoked Section 1 (a) of Republic
Act 157 (The NBI Charter) which empowers the NBI “to undertake investigations
of crimes and other offenses against the laws of the
Members of the investigation staff of the Bureau of Investigation shall be peace officers, and as such have the following powers:
(a) To make arrests, searches and seizures in accordance with existing laws and rules.[6]
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
By persisting
in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant, Atty. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
x x x x
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. (Emphasis supplied).
WHEREFORE, CBD Case No. 346 against Atty. Marichu C. Lambino is DISMISSED.
Atty. Orlando
V. Dizon is, in CBD Case No. 373, found guilty of
violation of Canon 1 of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a
copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
National Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Justice.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice