AC 7055; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 7055; July 31, 2006
Noriel Michael J. Ramientas, petitioner, vs. Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyala, respondent.
FACTS
Noriel Michael J. Ramientas filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyala before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. The complaint alleged that Reyala submitted a pleading to the Court of Appeals bearing a forged signature of another lawyer and improperly handled a case while employed at the same court, constituting violations of the Revised Penal Code and the Code of Professional Responsibility. After proceedings, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and, in Resolution No. XVII-2005-171 dated December 17, 2005, found Reyala guilty and modified the recommended penalty to a two-year suspension from the practice of law.
The IBP transmitted the records and resolution to the Supreme Court. However, prior to the transmittal, Reyala had filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with the IBP. The Supreme Court, upon receipt, required both parties to manifest if they were willing to submit the case for decision based on the existing pleadings. Ramientas agreed, but Reyala objected, praying that her pending motion for reconsideration before the IBP be resolved first, as she was informed the IBP could no longer act on it due to the transmittal.
ISSUE
Whether the IBP Board of Governors should resolve a motion for reconsideration of its resolution in a disciplinary case before transmitting the records to the Supreme Court for final action.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the IBP must first resolve a timely filed motion for reconsideration before elevating the case to the Court. Although Section 2(c), Rule III of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Rules lists a motion for reconsideration as a prohibited pleading, and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court does not explicitly provide for it, the Court’s jurisprudence has effectively amended this procedural aspect. In Halimao v. Villanueva, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration of an IBP resolution is not prohibited and may be filed within fifteen days from notice. This allows the IBP an opportunity to correct any errors, serving the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and promoting judicial efficiency.
Consequently, the Court established a clear procedure: (1) a party may file a motion for reconsideration with the IBP within fifteen days from notice; (2) if filed, the IBP must resolve it before transmitting the resolution and records to the Supreme Court; (3) if no motion is filed, the IBP should forthwith transmit the case; (4) a party may then file a petition for review with the Supreme Court within fifteen days from notice of the IBP’s resolution; and (5) for cases already transmitted with a pending motion for reconsideration, the IBP must withdraw the records to resolve the motion. Applying this, the Court remanded the case to the IBP for proper disposition of Reyala’s motion for reconsideration.