ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.C. No. 5046.March 21, 2001]

TRIAS vs. ATTY. FOJAS

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 21 2001.

A.C. No. 5046 (Linda N. Trias vs. Atty. Cecil M. Fojas.)

For consideration is Resolution No. XIV-2000-762 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, dated 16 December 2000, denying complainant's motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. XJV-2000-468 which dismissed the complaint against respondent Atty. Fojas for lack of merit. In its resolution, the Board stated that it no longer had jurisdiction to resolve complainant's motion for reconsideration considering that the case is now pending before the Court.

Moreover, the aforesaid pleading is improper as the remedy of the complainant is to file the appropriate motion with the Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of said Decision pursuant to Section 12 (c) of Rule 139-B.

Section 12 (c) of Rule 139-B provides:

"If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction Imposed by It is less than suspension or disbarment [such as admonition, reprimand, or fine] it shall Issue a decision exonerating respondent or Imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise."

In Halimao v. Villanueva 1 Adm Case No. 3825, 1 February 1996, 253 SCRA 1. the Court already stressed that a party in an administrative complaint can still file a motion for reconsideration despite the silence of the aforesaid Rule on such matter. We held that:

Although Rule 139-B, Sec. 12 (c) makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may therefore be filed within 15 days from notice to a party. Indeed the filing of such motion should be encouraged before resort is made to this Court as a matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies, to afford the agency rendering judgment an opportunity to correct any error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or misappreciation of evidence.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolves to RETURN the records of this case to the IBP Board of Governors so that it can resolve complainant's motion for reconsideration of IBP Resolution No. XIV-2000-468 dated 29 July 2000.

SO ORDERED

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com