March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 6973 : March 12, 2007] ROBERT FRANCIS F. MARONILLA AND ROMMEL F. MARONILLA V. ATTY. EFREN N. JORDA AND ATTY. IDA MAY J. LA'O :
[A.C. No. 6973 : March 12, 2007]
ROBERT FRANCIS F. MARONILLA AND ROMMEL F. MARONILLA V. ATTY. EFREN N. JORDA AND ATTY. IDA MAY J. LA'O
SIRS/MESDAMES:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12 MARCH 2007:
A.C. No. 6973 (Robert Francis F. Maronilla and Rommel F. Maronilla v. Atty. Efren N. Jorda and Atty. Ida May J. La'o)
This pertains to the allegations raised in respondent Atty. Efren Jorda's (respondent's) Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 May 2006, wherein he prays, among others, that Attys. Ramon M. Maronilla and Patrick Lester Ng Ty be required "to explain why they should not be cited for contempt of this Honorable Court for breaching the confidentiality rule of this proceeding, as well as for violating the sub judice rule; moreover, to explain why they should not be dealt with administratively for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and deputizing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline to conduct the investigation thereon; and in the event of unsatisfactory explanation, that both lawyers be meted the sanctions provided for by law."[1]
To recall, respondent was meted out the penalty of reprimand for gross ignorance of the law in the Court's Resolution dated 13 February 2006. However, upon motion of respondent, the Court reconsidered the earlier resolution and instead absolved him of the administrative charges, per its Resolution dated 30 October 2006.
In the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, respondent claimed that Atty. Ty, acting as counsel for a student charged before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) of the University of the Philippines, had filed in relation to the case he (respondent) was prosecuting before the SDT[2] a motion to inhibit him as prosecutor on the ground, among others, that he was reprimanded by the Court in the 13 February 2006 Resolution.[3] Respondent argued that the disclosure of the administrative case is a violation of the sub judice rule since his motion for reconsideration was then pending before this Court. Citing In Re: Heraclito Abistado,[4] respondent posited that "administrative proceedings against judges and lawyers are supposed to be confidential until their final termination, the purpose of the rule being to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants."[5]
Respondent further claimed that Atty. Maronilla, who allegedly belongs to the same fraternity as Atty. Ty's, was presumably the party who furnished copies of the Court's resolution and other documents related to the administrative case against him, which copies were attached to Atty. Ty's motion.[6]
The Court, in a Resolution dated 16 October 2006, found "no cause to determine any putative liability on the part of Atty. Maronilla xxx given that he did not sign the motion in question or otherwise had any demonstrable role in the preparation of such pleading."[7] Concerning Atty. Ty, the Court stated as follows:
The next course of action thus is to require Atty. Ty to comment on respondent's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, particularly the charge that he is liable for indirect contempt for his acts relating to the filing of the Motion to Inhibit before the SDT in light of the Court's pronouncement in In Re: Heraclito Abistado.[10] The Court is of the view that the resolution of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration should be confined to the charge against Atty. Ty as it is not necessary to pass upon the other reliefs prayed for there in.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Patrick Lester Ng Ty is required to COMMENT on respondent's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, particularly the charge of indirect contempt) against him for his acts relative to the filing of the Motion to Inhibit before the SDT in light of the Court's pronouncements in In Re: Heraclito Abistado, within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof.
Let the Clerk of Court furnish Atty. Ty with copies of the following:
A.C. No. 6973 (Robert Francis F. Maronilla and Rommel F. Maronilla v. Atty. Efren N. Jorda and Atty. Ida May J. La'o)
This pertains to the allegations raised in respondent Atty. Efren Jorda's (respondent's) Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 May 2006, wherein he prays, among others, that Attys. Ramon M. Maronilla and Patrick Lester Ng Ty be required "to explain why they should not be cited for contempt of this Honorable Court for breaching the confidentiality rule of this proceeding, as well as for violating the sub judice rule; moreover, to explain why they should not be dealt with administratively for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and deputizing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline to conduct the investigation thereon; and in the event of unsatisfactory explanation, that both lawyers be meted the sanctions provided for by law."[1]
To recall, respondent was meted out the penalty of reprimand for gross ignorance of the law in the Court's Resolution dated 13 February 2006. However, upon motion of respondent, the Court reconsidered the earlier resolution and instead absolved him of the administrative charges, per its Resolution dated 30 October 2006.
In the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, respondent claimed that Atty. Ty, acting as counsel for a student charged before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) of the University of the Philippines, had filed in relation to the case he (respondent) was prosecuting before the SDT[2] a motion to inhibit him as prosecutor on the ground, among others, that he was reprimanded by the Court in the 13 February 2006 Resolution.[3] Respondent argued that the disclosure of the administrative case is a violation of the sub judice rule since his motion for reconsideration was then pending before this Court. Citing In Re: Heraclito Abistado,[4] respondent posited that "administrative proceedings against judges and lawyers are supposed to be confidential until their final termination, the purpose of the rule being to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants."[5]
Respondent further claimed that Atty. Maronilla, who allegedly belongs to the same fraternity as Atty. Ty's, was presumably the party who furnished copies of the Court's resolution and other documents related to the administrative case against him, which copies were attached to Atty. Ty's motion.[6]
The Court, in a Resolution dated 16 October 2006, found "no cause to determine any putative liability on the part of Atty. Maronilla xxx given that he did not sign the motion in question or otherwise had any demonstrable role in the preparation of such pleading."[7] Concerning Atty. Ty, the Court stated as follows:
As to Atty. Ty, it would be prudent to require him to comment on these allegations raised by Atty. Jorda in his Supplemental Motion before any further action can be taken on Atty. Jorda's prayer. However, the Supplemental Motion does not state any address where Atty. Ty may be served a copy of the said motion. Hence, it would be necessary first for Atty. Jorda to inform the Court of the address of Atty. Ty where he can be duly furnished a copy of the Supplemental Motion.[8]Respondent filed a Compliance dated 21 November 2006, stating that the address of Atty. Ty, as indicated in the official records of the SDT, is at "OCAMPO & MANALO LAW OFFICE, 6th Floor Pacific Star Bldg., Makati Avenue cor. Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City."[9]
The next course of action thus is to require Atty. Ty to comment on respondent's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, particularly the charge that he is liable for indirect contempt for his acts relating to the filing of the Motion to Inhibit before the SDT in light of the Court's pronouncement in In Re: Heraclito Abistado.[10] The Court is of the view that the resolution of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration should be confined to the charge against Atty. Ty as it is not necessary to pass upon the other reliefs prayed for there in.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Patrick Lester Ng Ty is required to COMMENT on respondent's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, particularly the charge of indirect contempt) against him for his acts relative to the filing of the Motion to Inhibit before the SDT in light of the Court's pronouncements in In Re: Heraclito Abistado, within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof.
Let the Clerk of Court furnish Atty. Ty with copies of the following:
1) Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 May 2006, together with the annexes attached thereto; and
2) Resolution dated 16 October 2006.
2) Resolution dated 16 October 2006.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 207-208.
[2] SDT Case No. 01-005
[3] See rollo, p. 210.
[4] 57 Phil. 668 (1932).
[5] Rollo, p. 201.
[6] Id. at 202.
[7] Id. at 245.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 281.
[10] Supra note 4.
