ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.C. No. 5142. February 23, 2000]

BENITO J. PEREZ vs. ATTY. NELSON LOYOLA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 23 2000.

A.C. No. 5142 (Benito J. Perez vs. Atty. Nelson Loyola).

For resolution is a motion dated January 12, 2000, filed by respondent Atty. Nelson Loyola asking: (1) that he be granted an extension of time to file comment; (2) that complainant Benito J. Perez be ordered to furnish respondent with a copy of the complaint with its annexes; and (3) that complainant be ordered to give a more definite statement of his claims.

In his complaint dated September 12, 1999, complainant alleges that he sold a parcel of land in Barangay Labas, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, consisting of 600 square meters, to respondent sometime in November 1998; that respondent refused to pay the purchase price of P1,000.00 per square meter after the deed of sale had been delivered to him; that respondent is claiming the lot as compensation for legal services he rendered to complainant; and that respondent's claim had already been paid.

Respondent was required to file a comment on the complaint within 10 days from notice. In the instant motion, respondent claims that the complaint does not aver with sufficient definiteness the acts complained of, and that he was not furnished copies of the annexes thereto. He, therefore, asks for an extension of 30 days, counted from the date he is furnished a more definite statement of claims and copies of the annexes to the complaint, within which to file his comment.

Under Rule 12, �1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for a bill of particulars must point out the defects complained of, the paragraphs wherein they are contained, and the details desired. In moving for a bill of particulars, respondent claims that "there is no specification as to what exact wrongful act [is being complained of], [or] when, and how the same [was] committed" in the complaint against him.

The claim has no merit. As mentioned above, the complaint alleges that respondent refused to pay the purchase price of a parcel of land he bought from complainant on the pretext that he had not been paid for his legal services to complainant. The complaint, therefore, sufficiently avers the circumstances surrounding the act complained of to enable respondent to properly comment thereon.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED (1) to DENY, the motion of re Atty. Nelson Loyola for a bill of particulars for lack of merit; (2) to DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court forthwith to furnish respondent with a complete set of the annexes to the complaint; and (3) to GRANT respondent an extension of ten (10) days from receipt thereof within which to file his comment.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE