ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 4804.December 22, 1999]

NORMA V. ROSELL vs. ATTY. CHUPUNGCO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 22, 1999.

A.C. No. 4804(Norma V. Rosell vs. Atty. Manuel S. Chupungco.)

A complaint for disbarment dated 1 October 1997 was filed by Norma V. Rosell against Atty. Manuel S. Chupungco for his alleged failure to deliver to her despite repeated demands certain documents entrusted to him as her counsel. On 1 December 1997 we required respondent to comment on the complaint. On 26 August 1998 we directed respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for his failure to file his comment on the complaint as required in our resolution of 1 December 1997. On 25 November 1998, for his failure to show cause and to file his comment, we imposed on respondent Atty. Manuel S. Chupungco a fine of P1,000.00 or to suffer a five-day imprisonment should he fail to pay his fine within the prescribed period.

On 17 November 1999 it appearing that respondent once again failed to pay the P1,000.00 fine and to file his comment on the administrative complaint, as well as to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure, we declared respondent guilty of contempt under Rule 71, Sec. 3, par. (b), of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and ordered his imprisonment for five (5) days. We also directed him to submit his explanation for his failure and to comment on the administrative complaint.

Acting on the explanation of respondent dated 16 December 1999 with a prayer that the Court reconsider its resolution of 17 November 1999 declaring him guilty of contempt, arguing that he relied on the assurance of complainant that she would drop the administrative charge against him, and that he was unaware of the notices requiring him to file his comment until he was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation, the Court RESOLVES to NOTE his explanation but DENY his prayer for reconsideration of our resolution of 17 November 1999 for failing to raise any substantial and valid argument to merit the reversal sought. Not having been withdrawn, the Court's resolutions requiring respondent to comment should be complied with. We find to be without merit his claim that he did not receive the notices from this Court since the persons he employed to receive such notices did not bother to call his attention. A practicing lawyer is bound by the negligence of his employees; he is charged with notice of the resolutions of this Court.

The comment of respondent dated 16 December 1999 together with the proof of payment of his fine of P1,000.00 under O.R. No. 11783806 dated 20 December 1999 in compliance with the resolution of the Court of 25 November 1998 is likewise NOTED.

Respondent having now filed the comment required of him and having already paid the fine of P1,000.00, the National Bureau of Investigation is directed to immediately release respondent Atty. Manuel S. Chupungco from confinement and to make an immediate return of its compliance herewith, unless in the meantime respondent is further held for another lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE