ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 102639. September 6, 2000]

THE INT'L CORPORATE BANK, INC. vs. NLRC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 6 2000.

G.R. No. 102639 (The International Corporate Bank, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.) and

G.R. No. 102640 (The International Corporate Bank, Inc. vs. Stonehill Marafo, et al.)

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration and for Clarificatory Order filed by petitioner's counsel from the Resolution of June 14, 2000 requiring counsel to show cause why it should not be disciplinary dealt with for failure to move in the premises as required in the Resolution of August 11, 1999.

Petitioner's counsel averred that the failure to comply with the Resolution of August 11, 1999 was due to the "untimely resignation" of the counsel assigned to this case and the records were not properly turned over by the previous counsel. The explanation is unsatisfactory. It is the duty of the law firm to adopt a system of assigning cases to its lawyers bearing in mind that a client is bound by the mistakes and omission of his counsel. A lawyer owes his entire devotion to the interest of his client and to exercise the necessary care and diligence required of him as a member of the legal profession.

Petitioner's counsel likewise seeks a "clarificatory order regarding the move" which this Court required of petitioner to file. It must be recalled that in the Resolution of August 11, 1999, we required petitioner to "move in the premises" considering the length of time that this case has been pending and to determine whether supervening events may have rendered this case moot and academic and in case petitioner failed to file the proper manifestation, this case shall be considered terminated and closed and entry if judgment shall be made thereon. Petitioner only filed Entry of Appearance without the required manifestation.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding petitioner's counsel explanation in the motion for reconsideration to be unsatisfactory, counsel is hereby admonished to exert greater efforts for the fullest protection of his client's rights and interest. He is warned that the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely by this Court.

Likewise, petitioner, through counsel, is required to manifest within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, whether it is still interested in pursuing the case considering the length of time that this case has been pending with this Court and to determine whether supervening events may have rendered this case moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE