ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. CBD-98-590.March 19, 2001]

CARDENAS vs. ATTY. GRAVINO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 19 2001.

A.C. No. CBD-98-590(Fermin R. Cardenas vs. Atty. Benjamin A. Gravino.)

For consideration is Resolution No. XIV-2000-764 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, dated December 16, 2001, denying complainant Fermin R. Cardenas' motion for reconsideration of the Board's Resolution No. XIV-2000-540, dated September 2, 2000, which dismissed the administrative complaint filed by complainant against respondent Atty. Benjamin A. Gravino. The IBP Board stated that it no longer had jurisdiction over complainant's motion for reconsideration as the case had already been forwarded to this Court and that complainant's remedy is to file the appropriate motion with this Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the Board's resolution dismissing the administrative complaint.

In Halimao v. Villanueva (253 SCRA 1 (1996)), this Court held that although Rule 139-B, �12(c) makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. The motion may therefore be filed within fifteen (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 the judgment an opportunity to correct any error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or misappreciation of the evidence.

For the foregoing consideration, the Court RESOLVED 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-2000-540.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE