Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

A.C. No.

4497 September 26, 2001 (4) Respondent alleged that Rosalia


MR. and MRS. VENUSTIANO G. Saburnido served as chairperson of the
SABURNIDO, complainants, Board of Election Inspectors during the
1995 elections despite being related to a
vs.
candidate for barangay councilor. (Pending)
ATTY. FLORANTE E.
MADROÑO,1 respondent. In their reply, Rosalia Saburnido stressed that
QUISUMBING, J.: she served in the BEI in 1995 only because the
supposed chairperson was indisposed. Since
Facts: nobody objected, she proceeded to dispense
her duties as BEI chairperson. She added that
(Backstory) her relative lost in that election while
respondent's son won.
Respondent MADROÑO, a former judge of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court was accordingly Issue:
dismissed from the service because of pointing
a high-powered firearm at Saburnido, who was
unarmed at the time, during a heated WON Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
altercation.
IBP’s report and recommendation
He was again administratively charged in the
consolidated cases:
The IBP concluded that complainants
(1) Granted and reduced bail in a criminal case submitted convincing proof that respondent
without prior notice to the prosecution; and indeed committed acts constituting gross
misconduct that warrant the imposition of
(2) Allowed other persons to take confiscated administrative sanction. The IBP recommends
smuggled goods but did not issue the that respondent be suspended from the
corresponding memorandum receipts. practice of law for one year.

He was found guilty of both charges and his Held:


retirement benefits were forfeited.
In the present case, the spouses Saburnido Yes. Respondent is GUILTY of gross
allege that respondent has been harassing misconduct
them by filing numerous complaints against
them. Complainants allege that respondent A lawyer may be disciplined for any conduct, in
filed those cases against them in retaliation, his professional or private capacity, that
since they had earlier filed administrative renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of
cases against him that resulted in his dismissal the court.
from the judiciary.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
The following cases filed against them were:
Responsibility commands all lawyers to at all
(1) Respondent claimed that Venustiano lent times uphold the dignity and integrity of the
his service firearm to an acquaintance who legal profession. Specifically, in Rule 7.03, the
Code provides: Rule 7.03.—A lawyer shall not
thereafter extorted money from public
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
jeepney drivers. (Dismissed)
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether
(2) Respondent averred that Venustiano, with in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
the help of his co-respondents in the case, manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
inserted an entry in the police blotter
regarding the loss of Venustiano's firearm. Clearly, respondent’s act of filing multiple
(Dismissed) complaints against herein complainants
reflects on his fitness to be a member of the
(3) Respondent alleged that Venustiano legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness,
Saburnido, without permission from his a decidedly undesirable trait whether in a
superior, took into custody a prisoner by lawyer or another individual, as complainants
final Judgment who thereafter escaped. were instrumental in respondent’s dismissal
(Dismissed) from the judiciary. We see in respondent’s
tenacity in pursuing several cases against
complainants not the persistence of one who
has been grievously wronged but the obstinacy
of one who is trying to exact revenge.

We find that suspension from the practice of


law is sufficient to discipline respondent. The
supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court.

In this case, we find suspension to be a


sufficient sanction against respondent.

Suspension, we may add, is not primarily


intended as a punishment, but as a means to
protect the public and the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Florante E.


Madroño is found GUILTY of gross
misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one year with a WARNING
that a repetition the same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely.

Вам также может понравиться