G.R. No. A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC and A.M. No. 10-9-9-SC; March 20, 2012
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.].

FACTS

This case involves a petition for the lifting of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law imposed on Atty. Oliver O. Lozano. In a Resolution dated June 15, 2010, the Supreme Court found Atty. Lozano and his daughter, Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano, guilty of grave professional misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from their misquotation and misuse of constitutional provisions in pleadings filed before the Office of the Ombudsman and the House of Representatives, which were designed to impute unjust acts to members of the Supreme Court. The Court viewed this as a serious breach of the ethical standards required of lawyers.
Subsequently, in an August 23, 2011 Resolution, the Court reinstated Atty. Lozano-Endriano, finding circumstances indicating lesser culpability on her part. Atty. Lozano, however, remained suspended. Over the course of his two-year suspension, he filed several letter-petitions expressing his willingness to admit his error, observe the rules and standards of legal practice, and serve the ends of justice if reinstated. The Court noted it had not been informed of any unscrupulous acts by him during this period.

ISSUE

Whether the indefinite suspension from the practice of law imposed on Atty. Oliver O. Lozano should be lifted.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and lifted the indefinite suspension. The Court’s legal logic balances the need for disciplinary authority with the principle of restorative justice. The original penalty was imposed due to the serious nature of the misconduct—misusing constitutional provisions to insult members of the Court undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. Such acts warrant severe sanctions to uphold professional standards and deter similar behavior.
However, the Court emphasized that the purpose of a disciplinary penalty is not merely punitive but also corrective. It aims to impress upon the erring lawyer the gravity of the violation and to reform his conduct. The Court found that this purpose had been served in Atty. Lozano’s case. His repeated petitions demonstrated recognition of his error and a commitment to ethical practice. Furthermore, the absence of any reported misconduct during his suspension indicated rehabilitation. The Court, while vigilant in disciplining its officers, will not prolong a penalty once its corrective objective is achieved. Thus, expecting Atty. Lozano to now avoid legal misrepresentations and contribute positively to justice administration, the Court reinstated him as a member of the bar in good standing.