OCA CIRCULARS NO. 59-2002, October 07, 2002

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is the decision of the Second Division of the Supreme
Court in Administrative Case No. 4497 entitled “Mr. and Mrs. Venustiano
G. Saburnido vs. Atty. Florante E. Madrono” dated 26 September 2001, to
wit:

“xxx

A lawyer maybe disciplined for any conduct, in his
professional or private capacity, that renders him unfit to continue to
be an officer of the court.^[11]
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers
to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession. Specifically, in Rule 7.03, the Code provides:

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

Clearly, respondent’s act of riling multiple
complaints against herein complainants reflects on his fitness to be a
member of the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a
decidedly undesirable trait whether in a lawyer or another individual,
as complainants were instrumental in respondent’s dismissal 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.

Respondent’s action erodes rather than enhances
public perception of the legal profession. It constitutes gross
misconduct for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court, winch provides:

Sec 27 Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court, grounds therefore. — A member of the bar may be disbarred
or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required
to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
do. xxx

xxx

WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Florante E. Madrono is
found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one year with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent’s suspension is
effective upon his receipt of notice of this decision, xxx”

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the
decision of 26 September 2001 was denied with finality in the resolution
of the Second Division dated 28 January 2 which was received by
respondent on 28 February 2002.

7 October 2002