Alphonso Defensor I-B Legal Ethics Saa vs.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Facts: Petitioner Roland Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida stating that respondents act of filing two cases against him was oppressive and constituted unethical practice. The first case being in regards to a complaint filed against 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. And the 2nd case being similar to the former, an administrative case filed for dishonesty, among others. On February 17, 1992, a resolution was issue where respondent Venida was required to comment on the complaints. Respondent would provide a partial comment on January 26, 1993. The respondents comment stated that petitioner did not specifically allege his supposed infractions and hoped for dismissal of the complaint. Respondent also stated that that he did not receive a copy of the said complaint and that he misplaced the copy of the resolution to explain his delayed compliance. Respondent would also fail to provide his comment within the required 10 days provided in the resolution dated February 17, 1992 which resulted in the resolution dated June 14, 1995 to be issued, requiring respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be held against him for his failure to comply. Respondent would file his full comment on September 4, 1995 which was a reiteration of his partial comment stating also that he was performing his duties as counsel of petitioners adversaries. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated the matter and Commissioner George S. Briones recommended the dismissal of the complaints towards respondent for lack of merit and stating that there was no evidence indicating that the cases filed by respondent were acts of oppression or unethical practice. The Board of Governors of the IBP dismissed the complaint. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. In a petition for certiorari, petitioner ascribed a grave abuse of discretion when the IBP dismissed the complaint and that dismissal of his complaint for disbarment was therefore grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures. Issues: Whether or not a grave abuse of discretion was present in the dismissal of petitioners complaint?

Whether or not respondents actions constituted unethical practice? Held: No, there was no grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment by reason of passion or personal hostility as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The findings of the IBP stand for lack of evidence to prove that respondent was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions. Yes, respondents actions do constitute unethical behaviour when respondent failed to comply with various court directives when he submitted his partial comment on January 26, 1993 or 11 months after being directed to do so in the February 17, 1992 resolution and also in his delayed submission of his full comment on June 14, 1995 or a little over three years after due date. These actions are a clear violation of Canon 1 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility -Canon 1 states that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. And rule 1.03 which states that A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. -Canon 12 which states that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. and also rule 12.04 which states that A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes. Respondent apologized for the delayed filing of both his partial and full comments stating that he had misplaced the complaint and heavy workloads in reference to the delayed submission of his partial comment and also a typhoon for the loss of his files which resulted in the delay of his full comment. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyers oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The charge of oppressive or unethical behaviour against respondent is dismissed. 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 lawyers oath, Atty. Freddie A. Venida is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He is further STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and entered into the records of respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida. The Office of the Court Administrator shall furnish copies to all the courts of the land for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.