ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 5671.December 9, 2002]

GARCIA, JR. vs. ATTY. FLORES, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 DEC 2002.

Adm. Case No. 5671 [Formerly CBD Case No. 01-796](Ricardo V. Garcia, Jr. vs. Attys. Waldo Flores, Narmo Noblejas and Eligio Petilla.)

For consideration are the following: (a) Complainant's petition for review of Resolution No. XV-2002-78, dated February 23, 2002, of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the administrative complaint filed by him against respondents, Attys. Waldo Flores, Narmo Noblejas and Eligio Petilla; (b) Copy of complainant's reply to the comment of respondents on his urgent motion for reconsideration of the Board's Resolution No. XV-2002-78; and (c) Resolution No. XV-2002-371 of the Board, dated June 29, 2002, denying complainant's motion for reconsideration of its Resolution No. XV-2002-78 of February 23, 2002 on the ground that it no longer had jurisdiction to resolve the same as the case has already been forwarded to this Court.

In its resolution of July 29, 2002, the Court noted the IBP Board's Resolution No. XV-2002-78 which dismissed the complaint against respondents and referred complainant's urgent motion for reconsideration to the IBP Board for its resolution.

The case is still with the IBP due to such prior referral of complainant's urgent motion for reconsideration. Hence, the IBP Board should resolve complainant's motion on the merits.

In Halimao v. Villanueva (253 SCRA 1 (1996)), it was noted that, although Rule 139-B, �12 (c) of the Rules of Court makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. Such 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.

Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to (a) HOLD IN ABEYANCE the action to be taken by the Court on complainant's petition for review of Resolution No. XV-2002-78, dated February 23, 2002, pending resolution by the IBP Board of Governors of the complainant's motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. XV-2002-78; (b) NOTE the complainant's reply; and (c) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION IBP Board's Resolution No. 2002-371, dated June 29, 2002, and DIRECT the IBP Board of Governors to resolve in due course complainant's motion for reconsideration of IBP Resolution No. XV-2002-78, dated February 23, 2002.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE