G.R. No. A.C. No. 10043; November 20, 2013
AURORA H. CABAUATAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Aurora H. Cabauatan engaged the services of respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida to handle her appeal before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 85024. Respondent furnished complainant with drafts of pleadings, including an “Appearance as Counsel” and a “Motion for Extension of Time to File a Memorandum.” However, complainant later lost contact with him. She subsequently discovered that the Court of Appeals had issued an Entry of Judgment stating that her appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed for failure to file the required memorandum. The Entry of Judgment notably did not list respondent as a furnished party, indicating he never formally entered his appearance or filed any pleading with the appellate court.
During the ensuing disbarment proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), respondent exhibited a pattern of disregard for procedural directives. He failed to file his Answer to the complaint, did not attend the scheduled mandatory conferences despite notice, and did not submit his Position Paper. Only the complainant participated, submitting her evidence and position.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida is administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent violated Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By failing to file the necessary pleadings, particularly his formal entry of appearance and the appellant’s memorandum, respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, resulting in the dismissal of his client’s appeal. This constitutes gross negligence and a breach of his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence. His failure to keep his client informed about the case status further compounded this violation.
Moreover, respondent’s repeated failure to comply with the lawful orders of the IBP-CBD—by not filing an Answer, ignoring mandatory conferences, and not submitting a Position Paper—demonstrates disrespect for the judicial and investigative processes. As an officer of the court, a lawyer is duty-bound to obey court orders and the directives of the IBP, the Court’s investigating arm in administrative cases. This conduct is unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Freddie A. Venida from the practice of law for one year, with a warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.