A.C. No. 5190. July 26, 2022
HON. MANUEL E. CONTRERAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, OCAMPO, CAMARINES SUR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Manuel E. Contreras, upon assuming his post in 1999, discovered numerous cases involving respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida as either counsel or accused that had been dormant since 1992. Judge Contreras alleged that Atty. Venida employed dilatory tactics, filing impertinent motions and pro-forma postponements that obstructed justice. The respondent was described as defiant, belligerent, and disrespectful towards the court, using offensive language in his pleadings. His personal appearance in court was also noted as unkempt, unbecoming of a lawyer. Based on these observations and reports questioning his mental fitness, Judge Contreras recommended that Atty. Venida undergo a neuro-psychiatric examination to determine his fitness to practice law and competence to stand trial.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted this recommendation, suspending Atty. Venida indefinitely pending examination results. The Supreme Court ordered the examination, which was eventually completed. However, the proceedings were protracted due to difficulties in locating Atty. Venida for further evaluation. Meanwhile, in a separate 2016 disbarment case (A.C. No. 10671), the Court had already disbarred Atty. Venida for gross misconduct, including deceit and violation of notarial rules. The present case was thus consolidated with that prior disbarment resolution for a final disposition.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Freddie A. Venida should be suspended from the practice of law based on the findings of misconduct and the recommendation for a neuro-psychiatric examination.

RULING

Yes, but the penalty is imposed for recording purposes only due to a prior disbarment. The Court found the complaint meritorious. A lawyer’s duty is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Atty. Venida’s conduct, as documented by Judge Contreras—including his defiance, use of dilatory tactics, disrespectful language, and unkempt appearance—constituted gross misconduct and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such behavior undermined the administration of justice and brought the legal profession into disrepute. The Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation for an indefinite suspension, aligning with the power to discipline lawyers for acts showing unfitness to practice law.
However, the legal logic necessitates that the penalty be considered in context with the respondent’s disciplinary record. The Court noted that Atty. Venida had already been disbarred in A.C. No. 10671 (San Juan v. Venida). Jurisprudence establishes that once disbarred, no further penalty of suspension or disbarment can be imposed regarding the privilege to practice law. Nevertheless, for recording purposes, the corresponding penalty must be adjudged and entered into the lawyer’s personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant. This record is crucial and shall be considered in the event the lawyer subsequently files a petition for reinstatement. Therefore, the Court declared Atty. Venida suspended indefinitely from the practice of law, but this penalty is acknowledged as incapable of execution due to his existing disbarment. The ruling serves to complete the record of his ethical violations.