January 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions >
[Adm. Case No. 6973 : January 30, 2007] ROBERT FRANCIS F. MARONILLA AND ROMMEL F. MARONILLA, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. RAMON M. MARONILLA V. ATTY, EFREN N. JORDA AND IDA MAY J. LA'O, UP PROSECUTOR AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, UP QUEZON CITY HALL, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY :
[Adm. Case No. 6973 : January 30, 2007]
ROBERT FRANCIS F. MARONILLA AND ROMMEL F. MARONILLA, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. RAMON M. MARONILLA V. ATTY, EFREN N. JORDA AND IDA MAY J. LA'O, UP PROSECUTOR AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, UP QUEZON CITY HALL, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 31 January 2007:
Adm. Case No. 6973 (Robert Francis F. Maronilla and Rommel F. Maronilla, represented by Atty. Ramon M. Maronilla v. Atty, Efren N. Jorda and Ida May J. La'o, UP Prosecutor and Chief Legal Officer, UP Quezon City Hall, Diliman, Quezon City).� On 14 June 2006, the Court issued a Resolution requiring complainant Robert Francis Maronilla and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to comment witin fifteen (15) days from notice on respondent Atty. Efren M. Jorda's Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 March 2006.[1] According to the registry return receipts eventually returned to the Court, copies of the Resolution were received by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Maronilla on 27 and 31 July 2006, respectively.[2]
From late September to mid-October, the records of the. case were in the possession of the office of the Justice tasked with evaluating the Motion for Reconsideration. Efforts were made to ascertain whether the IBP or Maronilla had indeed filed their respective comments within the given period. The rollo did not contain any such comments. As a final measure, just before the finalization of the report and recommendation submitted for consideration of the Court, the office of the Justice concerned accessed the computerized Case Administration System (CAS), which is managed by the Docket and Receiving Section, in order to confirm that no such comments had been filed. It was verified that comments had not been filed, per records of the CAS.
The report submitted to the Court formed the basis of the Resolution dated 30 October 2006, granting Atty. Jorda's Motion for Reconsideration. In the said Resolution, the Court adverted to the fact that "[complainants and the IBP] failed to/file their respective comment^ within the period set by the Court; hence, they are deemed to have waived the opportunity to so comment."[3]
The case was again calendared for the 31 January 2007 Agenda of the Third Division. Among the pleadings set for deliberation are:
Copies of these pleadings are now attached to the rollo, which had been returned to the Records Division following the promulgation of the 30 October 2006 Resolution. Considering that the Court had stated therein that neither the IBP nor complainants had filed a comment to Atty. Jorda's Motion for Reconsideration, the Justice who had penned the Resolution undertook to inquire as to why these pleadings were not reflected earlier on the case record. On the morning of 24 January 2007, the office of the Justice accessed the CAS, and found out that to this day, no record of these three pleadings has been inputted in the CAS.
There are other curious circumstances relative to these three pleadings. All three pleadings were sent by registered mail, with the envelopes clearly addressed to the Third Division of the Supreme Court. The copies of the pleadings as attached to the Rollo reflect receipt of these pleadings by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Third Division, or the Docket and Receiving Section which usually receives all pleadings filed before the Court. What is indicated though is that these pleadings were stamped as having been received by the Office of the Bar Confidant. It would be unusual indeed if the Office of the Bar Confidant would have first received a copy of these pleadings prior to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third Division, or the Docket and Receiving Section; and the effect would be unfortunate especially if, as a result, the timely receipt of these pleadings would not have been recorded with the CAS.
Due ascertainment of the circumstances that transpired with the filing of the pleadings in question is necessary. To that end, the Court RESOLVES to require the Docket and Receiving Section, the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third .Division, and the Office of the Bar Confidant, to COMMENT within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Resolution, on the circumstances surrounding the filing of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment, dated 14 August 2006; the Manifestation dated 7 August 2006; and the Comment dated 21 August 2006. [Internal Res]
Adm. Case No. 6973 (Robert Francis F. Maronilla and Rommel F. Maronilla, represented by Atty. Ramon M. Maronilla v. Atty, Efren N. Jorda and Ida May J. La'o, UP Prosecutor and Chief Legal Officer, UP Quezon City Hall, Diliman, Quezon City).� On 14 June 2006, the Court issued a Resolution requiring complainant Robert Francis Maronilla and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to comment witin fifteen (15) days from notice on respondent Atty. Efren M. Jorda's Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 March 2006.[1] According to the registry return receipts eventually returned to the Court, copies of the Resolution were received by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Maronilla on 27 and 31 July 2006, respectively.[2]
From late September to mid-October, the records of the. case were in the possession of the office of the Justice tasked with evaluating the Motion for Reconsideration. Efforts were made to ascertain whether the IBP or Maronilla had indeed filed their respective comments within the given period. The rollo did not contain any such comments. As a final measure, just before the finalization of the report and recommendation submitted for consideration of the Court, the office of the Justice concerned accessed the computerized Case Administration System (CAS), which is managed by the Docket and Receiving Section, in order to confirm that no such comments had been filed. It was verified that comments had not been filed, per records of the CAS.
The report submitted to the Court formed the basis of the Resolution dated 30 October 2006, granting Atty. Jorda's Motion for Reconsideration. In the said Resolution, the Court adverted to the fact that "[complainants and the IBP] failed to/file their respective comment^ within the period set by the Court; hence, they are deemed to have waived the opportunity to so comment."[3]
The case was again calendared for the 31 January 2007 Agenda of the Third Division. Among the pleadings set for deliberation are:
- A Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment, dated 14 August 2006, filed by counsel for the Complainants, Ramon M. Maronilla, seeking an extension of until 21 August 2006 for the filing of complainants' comment;
- Manifestation dated 7 August 2006 of the IBP, signed by Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa of the Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP, informing the Court that the IBP had not been served a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration. and thus requesting for a copy of the same; and
- Comment dated 21 August 2006, filed by Ramon M. Maronilla in behalf of complainants, in compliance with the 14 June Resolution of the Court.
Copies of these pleadings are now attached to the rollo, which had been returned to the Records Division following the promulgation of the 30 October 2006 Resolution. Considering that the Court had stated therein that neither the IBP nor complainants had filed a comment to Atty. Jorda's Motion for Reconsideration, the Justice who had penned the Resolution undertook to inquire as to why these pleadings were not reflected earlier on the case record. On the morning of 24 January 2007, the office of the Justice accessed the CAS, and found out that to this day, no record of these three pleadings has been inputted in the CAS.
There are other curious circumstances relative to these three pleadings. All three pleadings were sent by registered mail, with the envelopes clearly addressed to the Third Division of the Supreme Court. The copies of the pleadings as attached to the Rollo reflect receipt of these pleadings by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Third Division, or the Docket and Receiving Section which usually receives all pleadings filed before the Court. What is indicated though is that these pleadings were stamped as having been received by the Office of the Bar Confidant. It would be unusual indeed if the Office of the Bar Confidant would have first received a copy of these pleadings prior to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third Division, or the Docket and Receiving Section; and the effect would be unfortunate especially if, as a result, the timely receipt of these pleadings would not have been recorded with the CAS.
Due ascertainment of the circumstances that transpired with the filing of the pleadings in question is necessary. To that end, the Court RESOLVES to require the Docket and Receiving Section, the Office of the Clerk of Court, Third .Division, and the Office of the Bar Confidant, to COMMENT within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Resolution, on the circumstances surrounding the filing of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment, dated 14 August 2006; the Manifestation dated 7 August 2006; and the Comment dated 21 August 2006. [Internal Res]
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p.196
[2] Id
[3] ld. at 262.
