I.

Parties
 Complainant: AURORA CABAUATAN – 78-year old
 Respondent: ATTY. FREDDIE VENIDA

II. Antecedent Facts

1. Cabauatan, a 78-year old, was an appellant in a case against Philippine National Bank.
2. She decided to change her counsel and thus engaged the services of Atty. Venida.
3. Subsequently, Atty. Venida furnished Cabauatan a draft of the draft of the pleading “Appearance as Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous Counsel and a Motion for
Extension of time to File a Memorandum.”
4. However, Atty. Veninda failed to file the same before the appellate court.
5. According to Cabautan, she made several follow-ups with Atty. Venida but the latter merely ignored her or made her believe that he was diligently handling her case.
6. Worse, Cabauatan eventually lost contact with Atty. Venida.
7. When the complaint was filed, Atty. Venida failed to file and answer, attend a mandatory IBP conference, and file a Position Paper despite receipt of the
corresponding notices.

III. Charge filed by Complainant against Respondent

 Disbarment case on the ground of gross, reckless and inexcusable negligence (or simply serious misconduct and gross neglect of duty)

IV. Answer of Respondent

None filed.

V. Recommendation of IBP/OCA/Investigating Officer

 Suspension of 1 year for:

- failing to file the necessary pleading before the court resulting in its outright dismissal; and
- disregarding the orders of the IBP to file an Answer, to attend the mandatory conference, and to file a Position Paper despite receipt of the corresponding notices

VI. Decision of the Supreme Court

 SUSPENDED for 1 year, with WARNING that a similar violation will be dealt with more severely.
 DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

“When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal
profession, the courts and society.”

VII. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon Violated

 Canon 17

Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.

 Canon 18 (18.03 and 18.04)

Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

VIII. Core Moral Values Ignored: Respect for authority, Love of truth, Selfless love of people

IX. Virtues Missing: Prudence, Justice

X. Vices Involved: Sloth