You are on page 1of 3

4/21/2017 B.M.No.

1755

PHILIPPINEJURISPRUDENCEFULLTEXT
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
B.M.No.1755June17,2008
RE.CLARIFICATIONONRULESOFPROCEDUREOFTHECOMMISSIONONBARDISCIPLINE

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

B.M.No.1755June17,2008

RE.CLARIFICATIONONRULESOFPROCEDUREOFTHECOMMISSIONONBARDISCIPLINE.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 17, 2008
B.M.No.1755(Re.RulesofProcedureoftheCommissiononBarDiscipline)

xx

Rule 139B of the Rules of Court governs the investigation of administrative complaints against
lawyers by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Section 12 of said rule prescribes the
procedurebeforetheIBP,thus:

a)EverycaseheardbyaninvestigatorshallbereviewedbytheIBPBoardofGovernorsupon
therecordandevidencetransmittedtoitbytheInvestigatorwithhisreport.Thedecisionofthe
Boarduponsuchreviewshallbeinwritingandshallclearlyanddistinctlystatethefactsandthe
reasonsonwhichitisbased.Itshallbepromulgatedwithinaperiodnotexceedingthirty(30)
daysfromthenextmeetingoftheBoardfollowingthesubmittaloftheInvestigator'sreport.

b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a
resolutionsettingforthitsfindingsandrecommendationswhich,togetherwiththewholerecord
ofthecase,shallforthwithbetransmittedtotheSupremeCourtforfinalaction.

c)IftherespondentisexoneratedbytheBoardorthedisciplinarysanctionimposedbyitisless
thansuspensionordisbarment(suchasadmonition,reprimand,orfine)itshallissueadecision
exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated
unlessuponpetitionofthecomplainantorotherinterestedpartyfiledwiththeSupremeCourt
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders
otherwise.

d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties through their
counsel.AcopyofthesameshallbetransmittedtotheSupremeCourt.

ToimplementRule139B,theCourt,inBarMatterNo.1755,approvedtheRulesofProcedureofthe
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP on September 25, 2007. The rules pertinent to
pleadings,notices,andappearancesareprovidedinSecs.1and2ofRuleIIIwhichread:

RULEIII

PLEADINGS,NOTICESANDAPPEARANCES

SECTION 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and
verifiedpositionpapersandmotionforreconsiderationofaresolution.

SEC.2.ProhibitedPleadings.Thefollowingpleadingsshallnotbeallowed,towit:

a.Motiontodismissthecomplaintorpetition

b.Motionforabillofparticulars

http://www.lawphil.net/courts/bm/bm_1755_2008.html 1/3
4/21/2017 B.M.No.1755

c.Motionforanewtrial

d.Petitionforrelieffromjudgment

e.Motionforreconsideration

f.Supplementalpleadings

UponqueryofIBPNationalPresidentFelicianoM.Bautista,theCourtissuedonFebruary12,2008a
Resolution amending Sec. 1, Rule III of the same rules by deleting the phrase "motion for
reconsiderationofaresolution,"toresolvetheconflictingprovisionsofSecs.1and2ofsaidRuleIII,
thus:

Sec. 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and
verifiedpositionpapers.

PursuanttotheFebruary12,2008Resolution,apartycannotfileamotionforreconsiderationofany
orderorresolutionwiththeInvestigatingCommissioneroftheCBDhearingthecase.

IntheResolutiondatedJuly31,2006inA.C.No.7055entitledRamientasv.Reyala,the Court held


that:

INCONCURRENCEWITHTHEABOVE,NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,asitishereby
resolvedtheaccordancewithourrulinginHalimaov.Villanueva,pertinentprovisionsofRuleIII
oftheRulesofProcedureoftheCommissiononBarDiscipline,ascontainedintheByLawsof
theIBP,particularly1and2,areherebydeemedamended.Accordingly,1ofsaidrulesnow
readsasfollows:

SECTION 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer,
verifiedpositionpaperandmotionforreconsiderationofresolution.xxx

And in 2, a motion for reconsideration is, thus, removed from the purview of the class of
prohibitedpleadings.

Further, the following guidelines shall be observed by the IBP in respect of disciplinary cases
againstlawyers:

1.TheIBPmustfirstaffordachancetoeitherpartytofileamotionforreconsiderationofthe
IBPresolutioncontainingitsfindingsandrecommendationswithinfifteen(15)daysfromnotice
ofreceiptbythepartiesthereon

2.Ifamotionforreconsiderationhasbeentimelyfiledbyanaggrievedparty,theIBPmustfirst
resolvethesamepriortoelevatingtothisCourtthesubjectresolutiontogetherwiththewhole
recordofthecase

3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP is
directedtoforthwithtransmittothisCourt,forfinalaction,thesubjectresolutiontogetherwith
thewholerecordofthecase

4.ApartydesiringtoappealfromtheresolutionoftheIPBmayfileapetitionforreviewbefore
thisCourtwithinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeofsaidresolutionsoughttobereviewedand

5.ForrecordsofcasesalreadytransmittedtothisCourtwherethereexistpendingmotionsfor
reconsiderationfiledinduetimebeforetheIBP,thelatterisdirectedtowithdrawfromthisCourt
thesubjectresolutionstogetherwiththewholerecordsofthecases,within30daysfromnotice,
and,thereafter,toactonsaidmotionswithreasonabledispatch.1

InviewoftheFebruary12,2008Resolution,thefalloofRamientasamendingSecs.1and2ofRule
III of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD is consequently repealed. At present, a motion for
reconsiderationisaprohibitedpleadinginCBDproceedingsbeforetheInvestigatingCommissioner.It
has to be clarified further that said CBD rules of procedure apply exclusively to proceedings before
said CBD Commissioner and not proceedings before the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) which are
governedbySec.12,Rule139BoftheRulesofCourt.Assuch,theotherdispositionsinRamientas
http://www.lawphil.net/courts/bm/bm_1755_2008.html 2/3
4/21/2017 B.M.No.1755
governedbySec.12,Rule139BoftheRulesofCourt.Assuch,theotherdispositionsinRamientas
relativetothefilingofamotionforreconsiderationbeforetheIPBBOGarestillvalidandsubsisting.In
fact,Ramientas has amplified the rules laid down in Rule 139B by supplying the procedure for the
filingofmotionsforreconsiderationsbeforetheBOG.

Thus,inanswertothequeryofDeputyClerkofCourtandBarConfidantMa.CristinaB.Layusadated
March17,2008onwhethertheFebruary12,2008ResolutioninBarMatterNo.1755haseffectively
supersededRamientas,theCourtresolvedasfollows:

1. On the amendment to Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule III of the CBD Rules of Procedure, the fallo in
RamientasisrepealedandsupersededbytheFebruary12,2008Resolution.Apartycannolonger
file a motion for reconsideration of any order or resolution of the Investigating Commissioner, such
motionbeingaprohibitedpleading.

2.RegardingtheissueofwhetheramotionforreconsiderationofadecisionorresolutionoftheBOG
canbeentertained,anaggrievedpartycanfilesaidmotionwiththeBOGwithinfifteen(15)daysfrom
noticeofreceiptthereofbysaidparty.

IncaseadecisionisrenderedbytheBOGthatexoneratestherespondentorimposesasanctionless
than suspension or disbarment, the aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration within the
15dayperiodfromnotice.Ifthemotionisdenied,saidpartycanfileapetitionforareviewunderRule
45oftheRulesofCourtwiththisCourtwithinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeoftheresolutionresolving
themotion.Ifnomotionforreconsiderationisfiled,thedecisionshallbecomefinalandexecutoryand
acopyofsaiddecisionshallbefurnishedthisCourt.

Iftheimposablepenaltyissuspensionfromthepracticeoflawordisbarment,theBOGshallissuea
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations. The aggrieved party can file a motion for
reconsideration of said resolution with the BOG within fifteen (15) days from notice. The BOG shall
first resolve the incident and shall thereafter elevate the assailed resolution with the entire case
records to this Court for final action. If the 15day period lapses without any motion for
reconsideration having been filed, then the BOG shall likewise transmit to this Court the resolution
withtheentirecaserecordsforappropriateaction.

LetthisResolutionbepublishedonceinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation.

Verytrulyyours,

MA.LUISAD.VILLARAMA(sgd.)
ClerkofCourt

Footnote

1497SCRA130,137138


TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/courts/bm/bm_1755_2008.html 3/3