ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 5295.May 7, 2003]
GO vs. ATTY. VILLAR-VERZOLA
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 7 2003.
A.C. No. 5295 (Jimmy T. Go vs. Atty. Cleofe B. Villar-Verzola. )
This is a verified complaint filed by Jimmy T. Go for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Cleofe B. Villar-Verzola. On November 13, 2000*, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. On July 26, 2002, IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline, Milagros V. San Juan, recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six months with a warning that a similar behavior shall be dealt with more severely. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation in its Resolution No. XV-2002-556.Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the IBP Board on the ground that it had no more jurisdiction to consider and resolve the matter which has been endorsed to this Court. [1] cralaw
On December 12, 2002, respondent filed with this Court a Motion to Reopen case and/or Motion for Reconsideration and/or for New Trial/ Hearing or Reinvestigation of the IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XV-2002-556. Respondent claims that she was not given the chance to be present or to answer the administrative case filed against her. Moreover, respondent points out that Commissioner San Juan did not conduct an investigation, in total disregard of the provisions of the Revised Rules of Court in disbarment and discipline of attorneys, particularly Rule 139-B, Sections 3, 8 and 12 (a) and (b).
Procedural due process in disbarment or suspension proceedings requires that the respondent be given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. [2] cralaw
As borne by the records, the IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline did not conduct a hearing, where the parties can present evidence to prove their complaints and defenses.
* ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, Resolution No. XV-2002-556 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline is SET ASIDE. This case is ordered REMANDED to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for further investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice hereof.
The Court further Resolves to NOTE:
(a)����� the Resolution No. XV-2003-51 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated January 25, 2003 denying respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Board's Decision in the above entitled case since the Board has no more jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already endorsed to the Supreme Court; and
(b) the First Indorsement dated March 10, 2003 of the Office of the Chief Justice referring the letter dated March 6, 2003 of Attys. Pacifico A. Agabin and Delia L. Hermoso praying that the herein case be remanded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for reinvestigation.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* REVISION:Nov. 12, 2000 CHANGED to Nov. 13, 2000.
[1] cralaw Section 12(b) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
[2] cralaw Abdul A. Sattar v . Atty. Percival Lopez, 338 Phil. 1 (1997), citing Rule 138, Section 30, Revised Rules of Court; Section 8, Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court and Valencia v . Cabanting, 196 SCRA 302 (1991).
* REVISION:Insertion made.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
