4/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
By Resolution dated January 27, 2010, the Court denied the petition for failure to
sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering the
assailed dispositions. Respondent received a copy of the resolution on February 25,
2010 but failed to inform him about it. And even when he paid respondent a visit in the
latter's office and inquired regarding the case status, respondent replied that the case
was still pending resolution.
His first visit happened sometime in March 2010. He only came to know of the decree
of dismissal when he again paid respondent a visit on May 11, 2010. On that occasion,
he inquired anew on the status of the case but respondent gave the same response,
i.e. the case was still pending with the Supreme Court. He then decided right there and
then to borrow the case folder from respondent to refresh himself on the details. To his
surprise, he came across a copy of this Court's Resolution dated January 27, 2010
denying his petition. He confronted respondent about what happened but the latter
merely shrugged it off saying that there was no more remedy. As it was, respondent
did not even file a motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from notice, thus,
allowing the resolution to lapse into finality.
Had respondent timely informed him of the decree of denial, he could have instructed
him to draft a motion for reconsideration, and if respondent was no longer willing to
represent him, he could have engaged the services of another lawyer.
Petitioner, thereafter, sent respondent a letter dated June 23, 2010, demanding that the
latter answer for the damages he suffered as a result of respondent's negligence and
deceitful conduct. He followed-up with a second demand letter dated July 12, 2010.
On August 8, 2010, he received respondent's reply, accusing him of extortion. Thus,
after some deep and lengthy reflection, he opted to administratively charge respondent
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent miserably failed to
perform the kind of competence and diligence required of him under Canon 18 of the
CPR insofar as handling his (complainant's) case was concerned. In fact, the petition
which respondent filed on his behalf did not even contain the material dates, nor bear
the requisite proof of identity vis-a-vis the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping.
Respondent's Answer
In his answer,[1] respondent basically countered:
He and complainant had a close and cordial relationship. Complainant was even his
son's godfather. Because of their close association, he agreed to represent complainant
in the case before the NLRC all the way to the Supreme Court. In view of the Court's
denial of the petition, he inquired from complainant if he had new evidence or
argument to persuade the Court regarding the merits of his case, but complainant was
not able to offer anything new. Worse, complainant got the copy of the Resolution
dated January 27, 2010 from the case file and kept it to himself.
In the absence of any new issue, matter, or evidence, a motion for reconsideration
would only be a reiteration of the arguments previously raised and passed upon in full
in the proceedings below. The Court may, therefore, just consider the motion dilatory
and the suit, groundless, thereby exposing him to a possible citation for contempt.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66208
2/10