July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 8158 : July 21, 2010] ELMER C. SOLIDON, COMPLAINANT VS. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, RESPONDENT.:
[A.C. No. 8158 : July 21, 2010]
ELMER C. SOLIDON, COMPLAINANT VS. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 July 2010 which reads as follows:
A.C. No. 8158 - ELMER C. SOLIDON, complainant -versus- ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, respondent.
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad of our February 24, 2010 Decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
We find that Atty. Macalalad's arguments lack merit.
Our action in our Resolution of March 25, 2009 was merely to note Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 (dated July 17, 2008) of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The term "noted" simply means that the Court took cognizance of the resolution without passing upon its merits;[1] "noting" does not imply agreement or approval of the recommended action.[2]
The Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline exercises only recommendatory powers in issuing its findings and recommended penalties, as the final authority and action on the admission to the practice of law, including the discipline and imposition of penalties on members of the Bar, belong to the Court; this was the authority we exercised in issuing the assailed Decision.[3] Thus, there was no IBP Board of Governors' action on the present case that became final; the authority to rule on the case and to impose the penalty all along rested with this Court. Necessarily, this means that the time to serve the penalty imposed does not depend on Atty. Macalalad's belief or choice. The penalty can only be, and must be, served after the finality of the ruling on the case.
We have duly considered the contributory fault of Atty. Macalalad's clients in arriving at our Decision. We find no compelling reason under the circumstances to deviate from our earlier conclusion.
Lastly, we also find no sufficient reason to reduce the penalty imposed on Atty. Macalalad who has failed to show any justifiable grounds to warrant a mitigation of the penalty. We reiterate that the penalty imposed is just and reasonable under the circumstances, and is fully in accord with existing jurisprudence.
ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, we DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, dated February 24, 2010, for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 8158 - ELMER C. SOLIDON, complainant -versus- ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, respondent.
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad of our February 24, 2010 Decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATION Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 dated July 17, 2008 of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. We impose on Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION from the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.03 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, effective upon finality of this Decision. Atty. Macalalad is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.While Atty. Macalalad admits the breach he committed in handling his client's case, he moves for the mitigation of the penalty we imposed, arguing that: first, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 dated July 17, 2008 of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline was already final and executory per Resolution, dated March 25, 2009, of this Court; and second, the penalty of six (6) months suspension was too harsh considering the contributory neglectful acts of his clients and the fact that he never intended to commit the lapses in handling the case.
Atty. Macalalad is also ORDERED to RETURN to Atty. Elmer C. Solidon the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P 50,000.00) with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of promulgation of this Decision until the full amount is returned.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and noted in Atty. Macalalad's record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
We find that Atty. Macalalad's arguments lack merit.
Our action in our Resolution of March 25, 2009 was merely to note Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 (dated July 17, 2008) of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The term "noted" simply means that the Court took cognizance of the resolution without passing upon its merits;[1] "noting" does not imply agreement or approval of the recommended action.[2]
The Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline exercises only recommendatory powers in issuing its findings and recommended penalties, as the final authority and action on the admission to the practice of law, including the discipline and imposition of penalties on members of the Bar, belong to the Court; this was the authority we exercised in issuing the assailed Decision.[3] Thus, there was no IBP Board of Governors' action on the present case that became final; the authority to rule on the case and to impose the penalty all along rested with this Court. Necessarily, this means that the time to serve the penalty imposed does not depend on Atty. Macalalad's belief or choice. The penalty can only be, and must be, served after the finality of the ruling on the case.
We have duly considered the contributory fault of Atty. Macalalad's clients in arriving at our Decision. We find no compelling reason under the circumstances to deviate from our earlier conclusion.
Lastly, we also find no sufficient reason to reduce the penalty imposed on Atty. Macalalad who has failed to show any justifiable grounds to warrant a mitigation of the penalty. We reiterate that the penalty imposed is just and reasonable under the circumstances, and is fully in accord with existing jurisprudence.
ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, we DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, dated February 24, 2010, for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 310, 321.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court; Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, supra note 1, at 321; Northwestern University, Inc. v. Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632, August 2, 2005, 465 SCRA 513, 516; Santos v. Llamas, A.C. No. 4749, January 20, 2000, 322 SCRA 529, 534.
