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.