A Separate Opinion: December 2010

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: Is Atty. Venida 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.

Full Text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/132826.htm

Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr.

Legal Ethics
Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 12

Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr.

A.C. No. 8481

FACTS:
In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the Court’s Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that he did not violate the lawyer’s oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no man for money or malice."

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision

FULL TEXT: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_8481_2010.html

Birth of A Separate Opinion

My first year in law school made a little easier -- thanks to online digests, notes, cases, and etc.

As a way of attempting balance, I am returning the favor.

All posts here are 100% mine, unless otherwise provided.

Enjoy and hope you get something out of this blog.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Law Resources

Saa vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr.

Birth of A Separate Opinion