In the recent case of ROLANDO SAA vs. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, et. al., G.R. No. 132826, September 3, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the charge of oppressive or unethical behavior against respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida; however, for violation of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the lawyer’s oath, Atty. Venida was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately from receipt of the resolution; and she was further STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let me digest the case for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.
Petitioner Rolanda Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Venida in 1991, alleging that Atty. Venida’s act of filing cases against him before the Tanodbayan for violation of Section 3-A, RA 3019 was oppressive and constituted unethical practice. In said cases, respondent Atty. Venida alleged that complainant induced and connived with the Postmaster of Capalonga, Camarines Norte, in affixing only P2 worth of stamps on each of the two pieces of registered mail, instead of P2.20 worth of stamps for each letter as required, to the damage and prejudice of the public.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. In 1997, IBP CBD Commissioner George S. Briones recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. It found no evidence that the two cases filed by Atty. Venida against Saa were acts of oppression or unethical practice. The Board of Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the investigating commissioner’s report and dismissed the complaint. Saa filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus he appealed the matter to the Supreme Court.
Although the Court agreed that the IBP committed no grave abuse of discretion, considering that there was in fact a dearth of evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Atty. Venida or convincing proof that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions against the petitioner, nonetheless, the Court strongly disapproved of Atty. Venida’s blatant refusal to comply with various court directives. Atty. Venida filed only a partial comment in 1993 or 11 months after being directed to do so in a 1992 resolution. He filed his complete comment only in 1995 or a little over three years after due date. In both instances, he managed to delay the resolution of the case, a clear violation of Canon 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court said. The Court further said that Atty. Venida had failed to file a memorandum within the period required in the Court’s 2004 resolution.
(Notes: CANON 12 – A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause. Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes).
The Court reminded the Bar that its members may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyer’s oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. (See Sec. 17, Rule 138). Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it, the Court said. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar, it added. Every lawyer should thus act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, the Court stated.
