February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.C. No. 9164 (Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2252) : February 29, 2012]
ATTY. ANGELITO W. CHUA v. ATTY. REY NATHANIEL IFURUNG.
A.C. No. 9164 [Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2252] - Atty. Angelito W. Chua v. Atty. Rey Nathaniel Ifurung. -The case arose from a complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Angelito W. Chua (complainant) against Atty. Rey Nathaniel Ifurung (Atty. Ifurung) filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility to wit: (1) filing of multiple motions, pleadings and other dilatory moves and tactics after the decision on the case had become final and executory that delayed the proceedings; (2) gross ignorance of the law; and (3) gross ignorance and complete disregard of the rule on stare decisi.
In its Report and Recommendation, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found no probable cause and recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Ifurung.
The Board of Governors, in its February 19, 2009 Resolution, affirmed the report and recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline. It then transmitted the case to this Court on June 30, 2011.
On August 25, 2011, complainant filed a petition for review asking reconsideration of the February 19, 2009 Resolution of the Board of Governors.
Atty. Ifurung filed a comment to which complainant filed a reply.
After a careful review of the case, the Court denies the petition for review and adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
As correctly ruled by the IBP, the respondent could not be faulted in filing numerous pleadings and motions in order to protect the interest of his client. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Indeed, a lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. It is a lawyer's duty to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client within the bounds of the law.[1]
In view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Rey Nathaniel C. Ifurung for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Amaya v. Atty. Tecson, A.C. No. 5996. February 07, 2005.