Bartolome v. Maranan

EN BANC

[A.M. No. P-11-2979. January 26, 2016.]

ELLA M. BARTOLOME, petitioner, vs. ROSALIE MARANAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS CAVITE, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 26, 2016, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-11-2979 (Ella M. Bartolome v. Rosalie Maranan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus Cavite). — In the Court's per curiam decision dated November 18, 2014, in A.M. No. P-11-2979 (Ella Bartolome v. Rosalie Maranan), the Court found respondent court stenographer Rosalie Maranan (Maranan) guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and dismissed her from the service. The Court further resolved to require Judge Fernando L. Felicen and Atty. Renante C. Bihasa to file their Comments on their alleged participation in the anomalous activities of Maranan.

In its resolution dated June 16, 2015, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to verify whether a copy of the November 18, 2014 decision was served on Atty. Bihasa.

In her memorandum to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno dated July 3, 2015, then Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal stated that the "subject Decision was personally received by one Renecito Bihasa on January 8, 2015 . . . per attached proof of service on the Notice of Judgment of the November 18, 2014 Decision."

In its resolution dated July 21, 2015, the Court resolved to require Atty. Renante Bihasa (a) to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for his failure to file a comment; and (b) to comply with the Court's November 18, 2014 decision.

In its resolution of November 16, 2015, the Court resolved to consider as served the show-cause resolution dated July 21, 2015, "addressed to Atty. Renante C. Bihasa, 449 Magnolia Street, Real Subdivision, Palico, Imus, Cavite, which resolution was returned unserved with notation on the letter-envelope 'RTS-Unclaimed.'"

In the same resolution, the Court resolved to: (a) impose on Atty. Bihasa a fine of P2,000.00 payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice hereof, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if said fine is not paid within said period; (b) require Atty. Bihasa to comply with the November 18, 2014 decision by filing the required comment, also within 10 days from notice; and (c) attach a copy of the resolution to the records of Atty. Bihasa in the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).

The Motion for Reconsideration

In the present motion for reconsideration, Atty. Bihasa prayed that the fine imposed on him be set aside, and that the Court's July 21, 2015 resolution be erased from his records with the OBC.

Atty. Bihasa claimed that he was unaware of the Court's directives in its November 18, 2014 decision and July 21, 2015 resolution. He explained that he moved out of his former residence at Magnolia St., Real Subdivision, Palico, Imus City, in September 2015, due to an altercation with his brother. He resided either at Dasmariñas City or Makati City and his visits to his former residence had been intermittent. He added that when he asked for any pleadings, resolutions, or decisions from his brother, the latter could not find them due to his "absent-mindedness."

Atty. Bihasa maintained that it was never his intention to defy the Court. He also prayed that he be furnished a copy of the Court's November 18, 2014 decision and its July 21, 2015 resolution, and that he be given 30 days from actual receipt to comply with the Court's directives.

Our Ruling

We Resolve to:

(1) deny the requests of Atty. Bihasa that (a) the fine imposed on him be set aside; and (b) the July 21, 2015 resolution be erased from his records with the OBC; and

(2) grant the request of Atty. Bihasa that he be furnished a copy of both the November 18, 2014 decision and the July 21, 2015 resolution of the Court at his law office located at the 2nd Floor, RCVJ Building, Don P. Campos Ave., Bayan 4114 Dasmariñas, Cavite, and require him to comply with the Court's directives within a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt.

We point out that the Court's decision requiring Atty. Bihasa to comment was promulgated on November 18, 2014, while the show-cause resolution was dated July 21, 2015. A copy of the November 18, 2014 decision was received by Atty. Bihasa's brother, Renecito, on January 8, 2015. Notably, Atty. Bihasa moved out of his residence only in September 2015. The alleged absent-mindedness of his brother is not an acceptable and valid excuse for Atty. Bihasa's noncompliance with the Court's directives.

We nonetheless require that Atty. Bihasa be furnished anew with the Court's November 18, 2014 decision and its July 21, 2015 resolution of the Court at his law office, and that he be required to comment, with a view to the determination of the liabilities he may have incurred in his personal capacity and as a member of the Bar for his involvement with the anomalous activities of Maranan.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we: ETHIDa

(1) DENY the requests of Atty. Bihasa that (a) the fine imposed on him be set aside; and (b) the July 21, 2015 resolution be erased from his records with the OBC; and

(2) GRANT the request of Atty. Bihasa that he be furnished a copy of both the November 18, 2014 decision and the July 21, 2015 resolution of the Court at his law office located at the 2nd Floor, RCVJ Building, Don P. Campos Avenue, Bayan, 4114 Dasmariñas, Cavite, and require him to comply with the Court's directives within a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt." (adv18)

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court