June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.C. No. 7565 : June 13, 2012]
MILA C. ARCHE v. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR.
A.C. No. 7565 (Mila C. Arche v. Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr.)
RESOLUTION
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors in Resolution XVIII-2008-333 dated July 17, 2008 recommended the suspension of respondent Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr. from the practice of law for three months for violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On November 24, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted the notice of the resolution and the records of the case to the Court for final action pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.[1]
On January 8, 2009, the Court issued the Resolution[2] approving and adopting the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors after finding respondent administratively liable as charged. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely, the suspension effective upon receipt of the Resolution. The parties as well as the IBP Board of Governors and Commission on Bar Discipline were furnished with copies of the resolution as evidenced by the registry return cards.
However, it appears that on October 24, 2008, respondent filed with the IBP a motion for reconsideration of IBP Resolution XVIII-2008-333. The Court was not notified of the filing of the motion nor furnished a copy thereof.
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution XIX-2011-422 denying respondent's motion for reconsideration as there was no cogent reason to reverse its findings and the motion was a mere reiteration of matters that had already been considered. On June 30, 2011, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted the notice of the resolution and the case records to the Court.[3]
On August 24, 2011, the Court noted the Notice of Resolution XIX-2011-422.
A review of the case shows that the IBP's denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper and there is no substantial reason to overturn the Court's earlier resolution finding respondent administratively liable. The Court thus considers this case CLOSED AND TERMINATED. Let the parties be informed accordingly. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Villarama, Jr., J., Acting Member, in lieu of Justice Velasco, Jr., per Special Order 1229 dated June 6, 2012.)cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 146.[2] Id. at 154-159.
[3] Id. at 202.