ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. CBD-257.September 3, 2001]

CUSTODIO vs. ATTY. VITUG, JR.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 3 2001.

A.C. No. CBD-257 (Jose V. Custodio vs. Atty. Julian R. Vitug, Jr.)

In its Resolution No. XIV-2000-49 dated 29 July 2000 the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that this case be dismissed in the absence of evidence to substantiate the complaint and for failure to prosecute.The recommendation was made on the basis of the following circumstances, to wit: respondent failed to file comment despite an Order to do so dated 5 October 1999; both complainant and respondent failed to appear in the scheduled hearing of 28 April 2000; and, finally, complainant despite due notice failed to take action when the case was submitted for resolution.

On 18 October 2000 we NOTED IBP Resolution No. XIV-2000-49.Quite obviously, while the Letter-Complaint of Jose V. Custodio charging respondent Atty. Julian R. Vitug, Jr. with having presented an impostor during the trial of a civil case was dated 15 March 1993, the Order of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline requiring him to comment thereon was only dated 5 October 1999, or after the lapse of more than six (6) years from the time the complaint was filed.Hence, we directed the CBD of the IBP to explain the delay within ten (10) days from notice.

In his Explanation dated 10 May 2001 Director Victor C. Fernandez, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline stated that complainant's Letter-Complaint dated 15 March 1993 was received by the IBP on 23 July 1993; that the late Eugenio Usi, Jr., custodian of records, was supposed to advise then Director for Bar Discipline Atty. Jose Aguila Grapilon of the receipt of the complaint so that the latter could issue the correspondent order for respondent to file his comment; that for "unknown reasons" Atty. Grapilon issued no such order; and, that when he as Director for Bar Discipline assumed the position in July 1999 he immediately reviewed all pending cases, and it was only then that he discovered that there was no order yet in this case requiring respondent to file his comment; hence, an order requiring comment was immediately issued on 5 October 1999.

Needless to stress, this is just one of those cases where the IBP recommend dismissal for alleged failure to prosecute but where its own inaction for an unreasonable length of time undoubtedly contributed to a great extent to the parties' seeming disinterest in pursuing the case.We need not remind the IBP of the importance of giving appropriate attention to administrative cases which greatly aid in purging the legal profession of the undeserving, the incompetents and the misfits.

ACCORDINGLY, let this case be BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the adoption and implementation of appropriate measures to prevent a repetition of such nonchalance and inattention to official duties of those concerned.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE