11. Ethelene San Juan vs Atty.

Freddie Venida

AC # 11317, August 23, 2016

FACTS: The case at bar is an administrative complaint filed by Ethelene San Juan (complainant) against Atty.
Freddie Venida (respondent) for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.

Complainant engaged the services of respondent to handle the petition for the declaration of nullity of
her marriage. Respondent accepted and asked for P25,000 by way of acceptance, filing, and docket fes.
Complainant agreed and respondent collected the payment personally. The following day, respondent asked
an additional P4,000 for Sheriff’s fees or process server in order to serve the summons. Complainant paid and
received an acknowledgement receipt, and respondent assured her that the petition will be filed with the RTC
as soon as possible. Upon follow up by complainant’s mother, respondent affirmed that the case has already
been filed and that the hearing will be scheduled eventually by the RTC.

Meanwhile, complainant’s mother asked for a copy of the petition that respondent filed in court, only to
find out that it was not stamped “received” by the RTC. Complainant contacted respondent regarding this
matter, and respondent said that such copy was merely a draft and that the acknowledged copy was in his
office. Complainant asked for respondent’s address so that she can secure a copy of said petition, but
respondent refused to give such information. Starting to get suspicious, she went to the OCC to inquire about
the status of her petition, and found out that the petition was never filed with its office. Complainant contacted
respondent multiple times and tried to meet up with him, to no avail.

Complainant filed a case of disbarment against respondent with the IBP, with the CBS issuing a Notice
of Mandatory Conference for both parties to appear and submit their Mandatory Conference Briefs. Both
parties failed to appear. The CBD and IBP recommended the respondent’s disbarment for exhibiting dubious
character that affects the standing of lawyers.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Venida should be handed the ultimate penalty of disbarment by the SC.

HELD: YES.

Lawyers are duty-bound to exhibit fidelity to their client's cause and to be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in them to diligently prosecute their clients' cases the moment they agreed to handle
them, as is mandated of them under Canon 17 of the Code. They owe entire devotion to the interest of the
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and the defense of the client's rights, and the exertion of their utmost
learning and abilities to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from the client, save by the rules of law
legally applied. Atty. Venida grossly failed to fulfil this mandate.

The records definitively show that Atty. Venida was completely remiss and negligent in handling
Ethelene's case, notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of Twenty-Nine Thousand Pesos (P29,000) from her by
way of his acceptance and filing fees. Instead of filing the petition, Atty. Venida gave his client a runaround
and led her to believe that the petition had already been filed. When pressed for updates, Atty. Venida evaded
Ethelene and refused to return her calls. Worse, the fees remain unaccounted for, which were entrusted to
him for the filing of the petition.

Atty. Venida's misappropriation of the funds, as well as avoidance to account for his ·actions when
confronted of his falsities, constitutes dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidence, and betrayal of his client'
interests. These acts undoubtedly speak of deceit. Such malfeasance is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and
dishonorable to the legal profession; it also reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is
a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar.
 Indubitably, Atty. Venida has a penchant for violating not only his oath as a lawyer and the Code, but
orders from the Court as well. He had been repeatedly warned that a similar violation will merit a more severe
penalty, and yet, his reprehensible conduct has, time and again, brought embarrassment and dishonor to the
legal profession. The Court cannot allow his blatant disregard of the Code and his sworn duty to continue.

We deem it fit to impose the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of law upon Atty. Venida,
considering that this is the second disciplinary action against him for a case of a similar nature. Membership in
the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of
the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the
Court to withdraw the same.