ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 6196. January 17, 2005]

MEJARES vs. ROMANA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2005 .

A.C. No. 6196 (Rosario H. Mejares vs. Atty. Daniel T. Romana.)

For consideration is the Motion For Clarification dated 27 August 2004 of respondent Daniel T. Romana ("respondent") of paragraph (c) of the Resolution dated 19 July 2004. The 19 July 2004 Resolution provides:

The Court Resolves to:

(a) NOTE the verified compliance of respondent dated May 20, 2004 with the decision of March 17, 2004 ;

(b) DENY for lack of merit the motion of respondent for reconsideration and prayer for dismissal of th[e] xxx complaint; and

(c) REITERATE the decision of March 17, 2004 , directing respondent to render an accounting, within ten (10) days from notice hereof. (Emphasis supplied)

Respondent alleges that his Compliance of 20 May 2004 "already contained [the] required 'accounting of all the money he received and paid voluntarily by his clients.'" Respondent also prays for an extension of 15 days from 1 September 2004 within which to file a second motion for reconsideration of "[paragraph] (b)" of the 19 July 2004 Resolution.

The dispositive portion of the Decision of 17 March 2004 provides:

WHEREFORE, we FIND respondent Atty. Daniel T. Romana GUILTY of violation of Rule 16.01 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Daniel T. Romana from the practice of law for six (6) months and DIRECT him to render an accounting, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision, of all the money he received from the Samahan ng Api at Mahihirap na Manggagawang Tinanggal ng M. Greenfield, Inc. [affiliated with Rizal Foundation, Inc.] (SAMAT-MGI-RFI). (Emphasis supplied)

The Court explained the need for respondent to render an accounting, thus:

Considering that respondent handled the Union members' case for more than ten years (from 1990 to 2001), it is highly likely that the Union members made other contributions to respondent, including the one complainant claims Union members made in 1994. Thus, respondent had the obligation to account for all the funds he received, giving a detailed explanation showing that such funds were spent for the purpose intended. (Emphasis supplied)

In his Compliance of 20 May 2004, respondent submitted five sheets of handwritten names of some 212 individuals, with the heading "SAMAT-MGI-RFI Attendance" for 24 August 1997, 19 October 1997 and 16 November 1997. Opposite a few names (less than 50) were indicated varying amounts, presumably to show the amount contributed. As this fell short of the accounting required in the Decision of 17 March 2004, the Court issued the 19 July 2004 Resolution reiterating the order for respondent to render an accounting. Thus, respondent's claim in his present motion that his Compliance of 20 May 2004 "already contained [the] required accounting" is without merit.

Respondent's request for an extension of time to file a second motion for reconsideration of "[paragraph] (b)" of the 19 July 2004 Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration of the Decision of 17 March 2004 is similarly without merit. Rule 52, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits a party from filing a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to: (1) REQUIRE, for the last time, respondent Daniel T. Romana to comply fully with the Decision of 17 March 2004 by submitting an accounting of the funds he received from the members of the Samahan ng Api at Mahihirap na Manggagawang Tinanggal ng M. Greenfield, Inc. [affiliated with Rizal Foundation, Inc.] (SAMAT-MGI-RFI), indicating the names of the contributors, the amounts contributed, and the purposes to which the funds were spent, within an inextendible period of 10 days from notice and (2) DENY the motion for extension of time to file a second motion for reconsideration as the same is a prohibited pleading.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE