ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[B.M. No.706. March 13, 2001]

DUYONGCO vs. DUYONGCO JR.

EN BANC

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 13 2001.

B.M. No. 706( Marie Villamor Duyongco vs. Jorge Y. Duyongco, Jr.)

For, consideration is the manifestation of Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, Acting Bar Confidant, stating that a report, dated September 8, 2000, was submitted in compliance with the Court's resolution of January 23, 1996. Atty. Layusa states in her report that after receiving the records of the case, her office scheduled a hearing on February 13, 1996; that the notice sent to respondent for the scheduled hearing on February 13, 1996 was returned to it with the notation "not found"; that it issued an order on February 13, 1996 resetting the hearing to March 12, 1996 but copies sent to complainant and respondent were likewise returned with the notations "party moved" and "not found," respectively; that in compliance with the resolution of March 26, 1996 of this Court granting the Bar Confidant's Office an extension of time to complete its investigation and to submit its report, hearing was scheduled but again both parties and their respective counsels failed to appear; that on May 10, 1996, the Bar Confidant wrote a letter to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City, inquiring about the status of Civil Case No. CEB-9683 (for legal separation, support, and support pendente lite) against respondent Jorge Y. Duyongco, Jr. and was informed that the RTC decision, dated June 30, 1993, which granted the petition for legal separation with support pendente lite, had been appealed by respondent to the Court of Appeals, where the case is now pending; that on April 6, 1998, respondent filed a manifestation/motion praying that the instant case be set for hearing but, apprehensive that the appeal from the RTC decision might be unfavorable to him, respondent orally asked the Office of the Bar Confidant to hold in abeyance action on his manifestation/motion to set this case for hearing until the Court of Appeals shall have decided his appeal.

The Office of the Bar Confidant thus prays that the period of thirty (30) days granted by the Court in its resolution of February 13, 2001, for the submission of a report and recommendation, be suspended until the matters brought out in its manifestation are resolved.

It appears from respondent's manifestation filed on January 22, 2001 that the present address of complainant is Dawis Norte Carmen, Cebu which is also the residence of complainant's parents and her two children by respondent; that said address appears in complainant's travel document, per Certification of Travel Records; and that respondent is not aware of any other existing address of complainant. However, notices sent to this address have been returned unserved with the result that no hearing can be held in this case.

In view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS this case for complainant's failure to prosecute the same for an unreasonable period of time.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE