Saa vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Willful disobedience of lawful court orders violates the lawyer's oath and Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants suspension, even where the underlying charge of oppressive or unethical filing of suits fails for lack of proof.

Rolando Saa was a party adverse to the clients represented by Atty. Freddie A. Venida in CA G.R. No. UDR 68, captioned Rosario Quintela, et al. vs. The Presiding Judge, Branch 38, RTC, Daet, Camarines Norte, and Rolando Saa. Atty. Venida thereafter filed cases against Saa in his capacity as counsel for those adversaries. The authority to investigate and recommend discipline of lawyers through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, subject to final action by the Supreme Court, provides the institutional setting for the subsequent disbarment proceeding.

Rolando Saa complained that Atty. Freddie A. Venida, acting as counsel for Saa's adversaries in a dismissed Court of Appeals case, filed two cases against him: a criminal case in the then Office of the Tanodbayan docketed as OMB 1-90-1118, Freddie A. Venida vs. Rolando Saa, et al., for violation of Section 3-A, RA 3019, and an administrative case in the Supreme Court for dishonesty, among others, docketed as A.C. P-90-513, Atty. Freddie Venida vs. Rolando Saa. Both cases alleged the same facts, namely that Saa induced and connived with the Postmaster of Capalonga, Camarines Norte, in affixing only ₱2 worth of stamps on each of two pieces of registered mail instead of the required ₱2.20 worth of stamps for each letter, to the damage and prejudice of the public.

On December 27, 1991, Saa filed a disbarment complaint characterizing those filings as oppressive and constituting unethical practice. Directed on February 17, 1992 to comment within 10 days, Atty. Venida filed only a belated partial compliance on January 26, 1993, claiming non-receipt of the complaint and misplacement of the resolution and praying for dismissal, and, despite receipt of a copy of the complaint, failed to file a complete comment. After the June 14, 1995 order to show cause for failure to comply, he filed his full comment on September 4, 1995, reiterating his partial comment and asserting he merely performed his duty as counsel of Saa's adversaries.

The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. In a report dated August 14, 1997, Commissioner George S. Briones found no evidence that the two cases were acts of oppression or unethical practice and recommended dismissal for lack of merit. The Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and dismissed the complaint, and denied Saa's motion for reconsideration. Saa then filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion, particularly because the report did not mention the dismissal of OMB 1-90-1118 and A.C. P-90-513. During the pendency of that petition, Atty. Venida again repeatedly failed to file his memorandum within the period required in the May 17, 2004 resolution and ignored successive show-cause directives, fines, and an arrest order, until his memorandum was dispensed with on July 21, 2008.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the IBP gravely abused its discretion when it adopted and affirmed the investigating commissioner's report dismissing his complaint.
• Omission of Dismissed Cases: Petitioner maintained that the investigating commissioner's report did not at all mention the dismissal of OMB 1-90-1118 and A.C. P-90-513 even if admitted by the parties, so that dismissal of the disbarment complaint was grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures.

• Insufficiency of Complaint: Respondent averred that Saa did not specifically allege his supposed infractions, asked to be furnished a copy of the complaint, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
• Performance of Duty as Counsel: Respondent argued that he was merely performing his duty as counsel of Saa's adversaries in filing the cases complained of.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the IBP committed grave abuse of discretion in adopting the investigating commissioner's report and dismissing the disbarment complaint.
• Oppressive and Unethical Practice: Whether respondent's filing of OMB 1-90-1118 and A.C. P-90-513 against petitioner constituted oppressive and unethical practice warranting disbarment.
• Disobedience of Court Orders: Whether respondent's repeated failure to comply with court directives violated the lawyer's oath and Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disciplinary sanction.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. No capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction was shown, mere disagreement with the dismissal being insufficient.
• Oppressive and Unethical Practice: No. The charge was dismissed for dearth of evidence that respondent was motivated by desire to file baseless legal actions.
• Disobedience of Court Orders: Yes. Repeated unjustified failure to obey lawful orders violated Canons 1 and 12, Rules 1.03 and 12.04, and the lawyer's oath, warranting one-year suspension with stern warning.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Grave abuse requires capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment by reason of passion or personal hostility equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to evasion or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. That standard was not met because the IBP's adoption of the finding of lack of merit rested on the record, and a decision is not tainted simply because the affected party disagrees with it.
• Oppressive and Unethical Practice: Without convincing proof that respondent was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions, oppression or unethical behavior was not established. The investigating commissioner found no evidence that the two filings were oppressive, and that finding was sustained notwithstanding petitioner's reliance on the alleged omission of reference to the dismissal of OMB 1-90-1118 and A.C. P-90-513.
• Disobedience of Court Orders: A lawyer is bound to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, promote respect for legal processes, and assist in speedy and efficient administration of justice without encouraging or delaying suits or misusing court processes. Respondent breached those duties by filing only a partial comment on January 26, 1993, eleven months late, and a full comment only on September 4, 1995, over three years late, thereby delaying resolution, and by again failing to file the memorandum due under the May 17, 2004 resolution despite extensions, show-cause orders, fines, and an arrest order. His excuses of misplacement, heavy workload, and loss of files to a typhoon were deemed unacceptable, and willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court falls under Rule 138, Section 27 as ground for disbarment or suspension.

• Grave abuse of discretion — Defined as a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment by reason of passion or personal hostility equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law; mere disagreement with a decision does not establish it. Applied to sustain the IBP dismissal absent any such showing.
• Lawyer's duty to obey court orders and respect legal processes — Under Canon 1, Canon 12, Rule 1.03, and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey laws, promote respect for law and legal processes, exert every effort to assist in speedy and efficient administration of justice, and shall not encourage suits or delay causes or unduly delay cases or misuse court processes. Applied to condemn respondent's multi-year delays in filing comments and memorandum.
• Disbarment or suspension for violation of oath and willful disobedience — Under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the oath, or willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Applied to impose one-year suspension for respondent's blatant refusal to comply with various directives, with stern warning against repetition.

• "Grave abuse of discretion refers to a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment by reason of passion or personal hostility as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." — States the controlling definition used to reject the claim that the IBP acted with grave abuse in dismissing the complaint.
• "It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law." — Supplies the threshold qualifier for grave abuse, supporting the rule that mere disagreement does not suffice.
• "Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession." — Articulates the ethical basis, reiterated from Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa, for suspending respondent for disobedience.
• "Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession." — Defines the public-confidence rationale for disciplining delay and disregard of court orders.

• Marohomsalic vs. Cole, G.R. No. 169918, 27 February 2008, 547 SCRA 98, 105-106 — Cited as authority for the definition of grave abuse of discretion and the requirement that it be patent and gross.
• Solidum vs. Hernandez, 117 Phil. 340 (1963) — Cited through Marohomsalic vs. Cole as original source of the grave abuse formulation.
• Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa, A.C. 5378, 19 February 2008, 546 SCRA 209 — Reiterated for the proposition that a lawyer who disobeys law disrespects it, disregards ethics, and disgraces the profession, supporting discipline for disobedience.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes; applied to condemn respondent's disregard of court directives.
• Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in speedy and efficient administration of justice; applied to respondent's delay of the case through late filings.
• Rule 1.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause; applied as part of the basis for suspension.
• Rule 12.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede execution of judgment or misuse court processes; applied to respondent's multi-year non-compliance.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides grounds for disbarment or suspension including violation of the oath and willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; applied to authorize suspension for repeated disobedience.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin concurred. No separate concurring reasoning of significance appears in the text.