ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 6299.� August 31, 2005]
NIAMATALI vs. SALDA�A
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 31 2005.
A.C. No. 6299 (SPOUSES GORDON and AMY NIAMATALI vs. ATTY. DONNABELLE GONZALEZ-SALDA�A.)
Assailed in this petition [1] cralaw are the October 25, 2003 [2] cralaw and April 16, 2004 [3] cralaw resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, which recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Donnabelle Gonzalez-Salda�a.
On February 5, 2003, complainant spouses filed a disbarment complaint [4] cralaw against respondent in the IBP. [5] cralaw
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, through Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, conducted hearings thereon and required the parties to submit their position papers. [6] cralaw
On September 15, 2003, the Investigating Commissioner submitted her report [7] cralaw and recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint for lack of merit.
On October 25, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors issued the first assailed resolution, which read:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, xxx, and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that the case lacks merit, the complaint against respondent is hereby DISMISSED. [8] cralaw
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration [9] cralaw on February 19, 2004.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court, on March 8, 2004, acted on the IBP resolution and ruled:
The notice of resolution dated October 25, 2003 by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, dismissing the complaint against respondent for lack of merit, is NOTED.
Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. [10] cralaw
On April 16, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors issued the second assailed resolution:
RESOLVED to DENY complainant'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 Honorable Supreme Court. (Section 12 (c) OF Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court) [11] cralaw
The Supreme Court noted [12] cralaw this IBP resolution on September 8, 2004. It also reiterated that the disbarment complaint had already been closed and terminated in the earlier March 8, 2004 resolution.
Complainants are now before us questioning the two IBP resolutions which recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint against respondent.
Complainants insist that the present petition was filed within the 15-day period provided in Section 12 (c), Rule 139-B. [13] cralaw They alleged that they received the first IBP resolution on February 12, 2004. They promptly filed their motion for reconsideration on February 19, 2004. They received the second resolution denying the motion on July 22, 2004. The petition filed on august 5, 2004 was, therefore, within the period provided by the rule.
We deny the petition.
It is true that Section 12 (c), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court gives complainants 15 days from notice of the IBP resolution to file a petition with the Supreme Court. However, we already issued two resolutions dated March 8, 2004 and September 8, 2004 adopting the assailed IBP resolutions.
The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has the ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. [14] cralaw It is neither bound by the findings of the IBP nor obliged to accept the same as a matter of course. [15] cralaw However, if it decides to adopt the same after review, then it is unquestionably within its power to do so.
Unfortunately for petitioners, we adopted the assailed IBP resolutions since the findings were credible and the corresponding recommendation was appropriate. We, therefore, considered the disbarment complaint against respondent already closed and terminated. Consequently, we cannot give due course to this petition anymore because the issues raised have already been fully resolved in our previous resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Section 12 (c), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court; Filed on August 5, 2004; Rollo, pp. 150-167.
[2] cralaw Id., p. 119.
[3] cralaw Id., p. 129.
[4] cralaw Id., pp. 1-9.
[5] cralaw Atty. Lourdes T. Pagayatan filed the disbarment complaint in behalf of complainant-spouses who are residing in Texas, U.S.A.
[6] cralaw Id., p. 68.
[7] cralaw Id., pp. 120-127.
[8] cralaw See note 2.
[9] cralaw Id., pp. 130-139.
[10] cralaw Id., p. 128.
[11] cralaw See note 3.
[12] cralaw Id., p. 148-149.
[13] cralaw SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. -
x x x
x x x
(c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated, unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise. (emphasis ours)
[14] cralaw Berbano v. Barcelona, A.C. No. 6084, 3 September 2003; 410 SCRA 258.
[15] cralaw Dumadag v. Lumaya, A.C. No. 2614, 29 June 2000; 334 SCRA 513.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
