SAA vs.

IBP

G.R. No. 132826

FACTS:

Atty. Freddie Venida, herein private respondent, filed criminal and administrative cases
against petitioner Saa containing the same facts and allegations – violation of Sec 3, RA 3019.
Saa filed a disbarment complaint against Venida in the Supreme Court on Dec 27, 1991 stating
that Venida’s act of filing two cases against him was oppressive and constituted unethical
practice.

In a Resolution dated February 17, 1992, Venida was required to comment on the complaint
within 10 days. However, Venida did not comply and just submitted a partial comment
January 26, 1993. Supreme Court issued another Resolution on June 14, 1995 requiring
Venida to show costs why he should not be dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply
with the February 17, 1992 resolution. It was not until September 4, 1995, almost 3 years late,
when Venida filed his full comment which is just a reiteration of his partial comment.

Supreme Court referred the matter to the IBP. In a report dated August 17, 1997 which the
IBP Board adopted, Commisioner Briones the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit
since it found no evidence of unethical practice and that it was not oppressive. Saa filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Venida is guilty of violation the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Supreme Court upholds the decision of the IBP that there was no grave abuse of discretion in
this case. There was in fact a dearth of evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on
the part of Atty. Venida. Without convincing proof that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire
to file baseless legal actions, the findings of the IBP stand.

However, the Supreme Court strongly disapproves Atty. Venida’s refusal to comply with the
directives of the court. As a lawyer, he has the responsibility to follow all legal orders and
processes. Worse, he filed his complete comment only on June 14, 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.

Atty. Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial and full comments. But tried to
exculpate himself by saying he inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a heavy
workload (for his partial comment). He even had the temerity to blame a strong typhoon for
the loss of all his files, the complaint included (for his full comment). His excuses tax the
imagination. Nevertheless, his apologies notwithstanding, we find his conduct utterly
unacceptable for a member of the legal profession. He must not be allowed to evade
accountability for his omissions.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Petition is granted in part. The charge of oppressive or unethical behavior 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 lawyer’s 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.