G.R. No. L-31852 and G.R. No. L-32724. November 20, 1974.
NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION (NASSCO), petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CIR), NATIONAL SHIPYARDS EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOCIATION (NASEWA) and/or MELANIO CAPILLAN, respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court rendered a decision on June 28, 1974, affirming the Court of Industrial Relations’ orders for the reinstatement and payment of backwages to respondent Melanio Capillan. This decision was issued in response to successive petitions from Capillan, joined by petitioner NASSCO’s counsel, Atty. M.C. Virata, urging the Court to expedite its resolution. Following the decision, Atty. Virata filed a manifestation stating the cases had become moot and academic. He revealed that Capillan had been reinstated as early as December 1, 1970, his backwages were paid on February 23, 1971, and he had voluntarily retired on April 19, 1974, receiving his gratuity and other benefits on June 10, 1974.
The Court, in a resolution dated July 19, 1974, required both Atty. Virata and Capillan to explain why they urged the Court to decide cases that were already settled, causing it to needlessly expend time and effort. Atty. Virata submitted explanations claiming he was unaware of the payments when he took over the case and believed the issues were not rendered academic by the execution of the CIR’s orders during the appeal. Capillan, in turn, filed a pleading denying the payments and his voluntary retirement, claiming coercion and making extravagant claims for attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. M.C. Virata and respondent Melanio Capillan are administratively liable for their conduct in relation to the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, both parties are at fault. The Supreme Court found that both Atty. Virata and Capillan failed to apprise the Court of the material factual developments—specifically, the payment of backwages, reinstatement, and subsequent retirement settlement—which rendered the cases moot prior to the Court’s decision. Atty. Virata, as a member of the bar and an officer of the court, bears a higher degree of responsibility. His duty was to inform the Court of these developments, seek appropriate relief if warranted, and not mislead the Court by urging a decision on settled matters. His actions caused the Court to needlessly expend time and effort on a case that could have been dismissed as moot, diverting resources from other meritorious controversies.
The Court administers a reprimand to Atty. Virata for his failure, with a warning that repetition will be severely dealt with. A copy of the resolution is ordered entered in his personal record. As for Capillan, who is not a lawyer, he is admonished for making hazy denials of documented facts and extravagant claims, which border on misrepresentation. He is warned that such conduct may subject him to contempt or criminal prosecution. The Court emphasizes that the settlement through retirement had indeed mooted the cases.