Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions > [A.C. No. 7929 : August 25, 2010] JOSEPHINE BRACAMONTE, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS -VERSUS- ATTY. BERTRAND A. BATERINA AND ATTY. RYAN R. BESID, RESPONDENTS.:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 August 2010, which reads as follows:

A.C. No. 7929 - JOSEPHINE BRACAMONTE, ET AL., complainants -versus- ATTY. BERTRAND A. BATERINA and ATTY. RYAN R. BESID, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

For consideration is the Manifestation with Motion to Direct Commission on Bar Discipline to Consolidate filed by Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina, Atty. Riche L. Tiblani and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit (movants, collectively). The movants seek to consolidate the three (3) disbarment cases, presently pending before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, against the following lawyers: Atty. Fernando P. Perito, Atty. Baterina, Atty. Ryan R. Besid, Atty. Tiblani and Atty. Pammit. In their pleading, they aver:

1. A.C. No. 7929: Disbarment case purportedly filed by Jason and Josephine Bracamonle (but obviously authored by Perito) against Baterina and Besid, which is currently being heard by Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag ("Commissioner Hababag") of the CBD, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP").
   
   
2. CBD Case No. 09-2468: Disbarment case filed by Baterina against Perito as a countersuit to A.C. No. 7929. Perito filed his Answer dated 28 July 2009. On 14 September 2009, Perito also filed a Motion to Consider the Answer of Respondent his Position Paper. Thereafter, no other pleadings or Orders coming from the CBD were received.
   
   
3. CBD Case No. 09-2492: Disbarment complaint filed by Perito against Baterina, Besid, Tiblani and Pammit based again on the same set of circumstances as the ones in the previous disbarment cases. The case is currently being heard before the CBD and pending before the same Commissioner Hababag. The answer was filed on 5 October 2009. On 14 January 2010, the Respondents filed a Motion to Consolidate, which was denied in an Order dated 11 March 2010 x x x.^[1]
   

In moving to consolidate the three (3) cases, the movants refer to Section 3, Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline IBP, and Section 1, Rule 31 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. They claim that the Minute Resolutions dated February 4, 2009 and August 3, 2009 of the Court impliedly recognized that the first disbarment case against Atty. Baterina and Atty. Besid, and Atty. Baterina's countersuit against Atty. Perito should be considered a single disbarment case.

The movants posit that the third disbarment case should also be consolidated with the two (2) disbarment cases, on the ground that it contains the same set of facts and the same parties as the first, two (2) disbarment cases.

We refer to the rules on consolidation of cases.

Section 3, Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline IBP states:

SEC. 3. Consolidation of Cases. Where there are two or more cases pending before the Commission involving the same parties, the same shall motu prop[r]io be consolidated with the first case filed to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

In turn, Section 1, Rule 31 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Consolidation. - When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any. or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

The records show, that Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag already denied the motion to consolidate the first and second cases in the Order dated March 11, 2010, by referring to the Opposition filed by Atty. Perito that the complaint filed against the movants was totally different. Since the records of these three (3) disbarment cases are already before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, the latter is in a better position to ascertain whether the consolidation of these cases is proper.

In any case, the February 4, 2009 and August 3, 2009 Court minute resolutions do not clearly support their position, but only show the Court's referral of the pleadings to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation/decision. Moreover, the movants did not present, in their present motion, the factual basis to support the conclusion that there is commonality of legal and factual issues in the three (3) disbarment cases.

Finally, the consolidation of cases under Section 3, Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline IBP shall be made when the cases involve the same parties. A facial examination of the captions in the three (3) disbarment cases shows that the parties involved are not the same.

ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, we resolve to:

(1)	DENY the Manifestation with Motion to Direct Commission on Bar Discipline to Consolidate filed by Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina, Atty. Riche L. Tiblani and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit; and
(2)	NOTE the letter, dated June 9, 2010, of Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, Director for Bar Discipline, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, in compliance with the Resolution dated April 28, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Page 2 of the Manifestation with Motion to Direct Commission on Bar Discipline to Consolidate.