March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 143786 : March 01, 2010] SPOUSES LOURDES V. ROTAQUIO, ET AL. V. MAURA PEÑAMORA, ET AL. :
[G.R. No. 143786 : March 01, 2010]
SPOUSES LOURDES V. ROTAQUIO, ET AL. V. MAURA PEÑAMORA, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 01 March 2010:
G.R. No. 143786 (Spouses Lourdes V. Rotaquio, et al. v. Maura Pe�amora, et al.).- On October 17, 2008, we rendered a Decision[1] in favor of petitioners, reversing the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59290 dated June 23, 2000, and reinstating the appeal interposed by petitioners Julian Villaflor, et al. In the same Decision, we also directed petitioners' counsels, Valdez-Sales & Associates and Atty. Willie B. Sarmiento, to show cause within ten (10) inextendible days from notice why they should not be disciplinarily dealt with for gross negligence, arising from their failure to timely file Julian Villailor's appellant's brief.
In our Resolution[2] dated February 9, 2009, when copies of our October 17, 2008 Decision, addressed to respondents Modesto Lopez, et al., Alfonso Veluz and Isabelita Penamora c/o Helen Quirez of Bantilan, Infanta, Quezon, had been returned unserved with the postal carrier's notation on the envelope "RTS-addressee moved; refused by c/o," we resolved to require petitioners to inform this Court of respondents' complete and present addresses within ten (10) days from notice thereof.
On March 24, 2009, petitioners filed their Compliance and Manifestation[3] dated March 23, 2009, manifesting that they did not know of any other addresses of respondents except the one appearing on record.
Thus, in our Resolution[4] dated June 10, 2009, we noted petitioners' Compliance and Manifestation and directed the counsel for respondents to furnish this Court with respondents' new addresses within ten (10) days from notice.
Later, in our Resolution[5] dated September 30, 2009, as Atty. Jorge B. Vargas had failed to furnish this Court with respondents' new addresses within the period set, we resolved to require Atty. Vargas to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and to comply with our Resolution dated June 10, 2009, both within ten (10) days from notice thereof.
As it also appeared that Atty. Sarmiento and Valdez-Sales & Associates had failed to comply with our Decision dated October 17, 2008, we further resolved to impose on them a fine of P5,000.00 payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days, if said fine was not paid within said period. We further directed the Office of the Bar Confidant to attach a copy of the September 30, 2009. Resolution to the official records of Atty. Sarmiento.
On November 5, 2009, Atty. Sarmiento paid the P5,000.00 court fine
as directed.[6] The following day, November 6, 2009, he filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and Compliance[7] [With Prayer for Additional Time], praying that his compliance be noted and that the September 30, 2009 Resolution be reconsidered to allow him to photocopy the records of the case for his perusal and review, and to grant him an extension often (10) days from completion of photocopying to comply with the October 17, 2008 Decision.
In our Resolution[8] dated December 14,2009, we resolved to note Atty. Sarmiento's payment of the P5,000.00 court fine and to grant his motion for reconsideration and compliance. Atty. Sarmiento was thus informed that he could get a copy of the requested pleadings from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third Division, during office hours and upon payment of appropriate fees. It appears on record that Atty. Sarmiento already received the photocopies of the documents he requested on November 10, 2009.[9]
Per report from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third Division, Atty. Sarmiento failed to comply with the October 17, 2008 Decision despite receipt of copies of the records of the case on November 10, 2009; Valdez- Sales & Associates also failed to comply with the October. 17, 2008 Decision despite due notice; and Atty. Vargas, counsel for respondents, likewise failed to comply with the Show Cause Resolution dated September 30, 2009 despite having been duly notified.
We find it lamentable that these lawyers were remiss in their duties to protect the interests of their respective clients. More reprehensible is that they, as officers of the court, without any proffered reason, failed to comply with the lawful orders of this Court. Considering the impasse brought about by the misfeasance of these counsels, we are, therefore, constrained to dismiss this case altogether and consider it closed and terminated, but only with respect to the appeal of petitioners Julian Villaflor, et al.
WHEREFORE, this case is DISMISSED and considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to institute the appropriate action against the erring lawyers.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Chairperson, Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro (designated member per Raffle dated 22 April 2009), Hon. Martin S. Villarama (designated member per Raffle dated 20 November 2009 pursuant to Amended Rules under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC) and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza (designated member per Memorandum dated 05 January 2010, pursuant to Amended Rules under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC), Members, Special Third Division, this 1st day of March 2010.
G.R. No. 143786 (Spouses Lourdes V. Rotaquio, et al. v. Maura Pe�amora, et al.).- On October 17, 2008, we rendered a Decision[1] in favor of petitioners, reversing the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59290 dated June 23, 2000, and reinstating the appeal interposed by petitioners Julian Villaflor, et al. In the same Decision, we also directed petitioners' counsels, Valdez-Sales & Associates and Atty. Willie B. Sarmiento, to show cause within ten (10) inextendible days from notice why they should not be disciplinarily dealt with for gross negligence, arising from their failure to timely file Julian Villailor's appellant's brief.
In our Resolution[2] dated February 9, 2009, when copies of our October 17, 2008 Decision, addressed to respondents Modesto Lopez, et al., Alfonso Veluz and Isabelita Penamora c/o Helen Quirez of Bantilan, Infanta, Quezon, had been returned unserved with the postal carrier's notation on the envelope "RTS-addressee moved; refused by c/o," we resolved to require petitioners to inform this Court of respondents' complete and present addresses within ten (10) days from notice thereof.
On March 24, 2009, petitioners filed their Compliance and Manifestation[3] dated March 23, 2009, manifesting that they did not know of any other addresses of respondents except the one appearing on record.
Thus, in our Resolution[4] dated June 10, 2009, we noted petitioners' Compliance and Manifestation and directed the counsel for respondents to furnish this Court with respondents' new addresses within ten (10) days from notice.
Later, in our Resolution[5] dated September 30, 2009, as Atty. Jorge B. Vargas had failed to furnish this Court with respondents' new addresses within the period set, we resolved to require Atty. Vargas to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and to comply with our Resolution dated June 10, 2009, both within ten (10) days from notice thereof.
As it also appeared that Atty. Sarmiento and Valdez-Sales & Associates had failed to comply with our Decision dated October 17, 2008, we further resolved to impose on them a fine of P5,000.00 payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days, if said fine was not paid within said period. We further directed the Office of the Bar Confidant to attach a copy of the September 30, 2009. Resolution to the official records of Atty. Sarmiento.
On November 5, 2009, Atty. Sarmiento paid the P5,000.00 court fine
as directed.[6] The following day, November 6, 2009, he filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and Compliance[7] [With Prayer for Additional Time], praying that his compliance be noted and that the September 30, 2009 Resolution be reconsidered to allow him to photocopy the records of the case for his perusal and review, and to grant him an extension often (10) days from completion of photocopying to comply with the October 17, 2008 Decision.
In our Resolution[8] dated December 14,2009, we resolved to note Atty. Sarmiento's payment of the P5,000.00 court fine and to grant his motion for reconsideration and compliance. Atty. Sarmiento was thus informed that he could get a copy of the requested pleadings from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third Division, during office hours and upon payment of appropriate fees. It appears on record that Atty. Sarmiento already received the photocopies of the documents he requested on November 10, 2009.[9]
Per report from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third Division, Atty. Sarmiento failed to comply with the October 17, 2008 Decision despite receipt of copies of the records of the case on November 10, 2009; Valdez- Sales & Associates also failed to comply with the October. 17, 2008 Decision despite due notice; and Atty. Vargas, counsel for respondents, likewise failed to comply with the Show Cause Resolution dated September 30, 2009 despite having been duly notified.
We find it lamentable that these lawyers were remiss in their duties to protect the interests of their respective clients. More reprehensible is that they, as officers of the court, without any proffered reason, failed to comply with the lawful orders of this Court. Considering the impasse brought about by the misfeasance of these counsels, we are, therefore, constrained to dismiss this case altogether and consider it closed and terminated, but only with respect to the appeal of petitioners Julian Villaflor, et al.
WHEREFORE, this case is DISMISSED and considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to institute the appropriate action against the erring lawyers.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Chairperson, Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro (designated member per Raffle dated 22 April 2009), Hon. Martin S. Villarama (designated member per Raffle dated 20 November 2009 pursuant to Amended Rules under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC) and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza (designated member per Memorandum dated 05 January 2010, pursuant to Amended Rules under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC), Members, Special Third Division, this 1st day of March 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 275-285.
[2] Id. at 287.
[3] Id. at 288-289.
[4] Id. at 295.
[5] Id. at 296-297.
[6] Id. at 298.
[7] Id. at 299-302.
[8] Id. at 304-305.
[9] Id. at 307.
