FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226773. December 7, 2021.]
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ITS LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, petitioner, vs. RAMON BATUHAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226773 (National Food Authority represented by the Director of its Legal Affairs Department v. Ramon Batuhan). — This resolves the (1) Motion for Reconsideration dated April 30, 2018 1 filed by Ramon Batuhan (respondent) to seek the reversal of this Court's Resolution dated March 12, 2018; 2 and (2) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 6, 2019 3 filed by petitioner National Food Authority (NFA) seeking the reversal of our Resolution dated June 3, 2019. 4
Antecedents
On September 23, 2016, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, 5 assailing the October 22, 2015 Decision 6 and July 14, 2016 Resolution 7 of the Court of Appeals (CA), 22nd Division, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 05368-MIN.
On October 19, 2016, this Court issued a Resolution, 8 which resolved to: a) exclude the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Eight Division, Cagayan de Oro City, as respondent from the title of the case; and b) require the respondent to file a comment within ten (10) days from notice. Consequently, after the prescribed period given to the respondent expired on December 29, 2016 and no comment on the petition for review was filed, this Court issued a Resolution 9 on August 7, 2017, which directed respondent to: a) show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to file a comment on the petition for review; and b) submit the required comment, both within 10 days from notice.
On March 12, 2018, this Court issued another Resolution 10 which resolved to: a) impose upon respondent a fine amounting to P1,000.00 within 10 days from notice, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if such fine is not paid within the prescribed period; and b) require respondent to submit the comment on the petition for review within 10 days from notice.
On May 21, 2018, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, where he averred that this Court was not informed of the amicable settlement between him and the NFA before the NLRC in case no. NLRC No. MAC-02-012441-2012. With the amicable settlement, respondent contended that there was no need to elevate the matters before us. In all, respondent posited that he never intended to ignore the directives of this Court and pleaded to remove the penalty imposed upon him pursuant to this Court's Resolution dated March 12, 2018. 11
On July 2, 2018, this Court issued a Resolution, 12 which required petitioner to file a comment on respondent's motion for reconsideration within ten days from receipt.
On June 3, 2019, this Court issued another Resolution 13 which resolved to impose and require petitioner's counsel, Atty. Richardson A. Bassig (Atty. Bassig) to: a) pay a fine of P2,000.00; and b) file a comment on the motion for reconsideration, both within 10 days from notice. As culled from the records, it appears that Atty. Bassig failed to file the required comment within the prescribed period, which expired on September 10, 2018.
Aggrieved, petitioner, through Atty. Bassig, filed a motion for reconsideration on September 25, 2019, humbly appealing the sympathy of this Court and in the interest of justice, to reconsider the penalty imposed upon Atty. Bassig. In arguing so, petitioner states that the case was assigned to a new lawyer on May 30, 2018, but he was no longer connected with NFA on May 17, 2019. Consequently, no formal turn-over of the case records was made. Due to numerous deadlines and heavy workload of cases, the previous lawyer who handled the case may have inadvertently overlooked to prepare and submit the required comment. By way of comment to respondent's motion for reconsideration, petitioner denies the alleged amicable settlement, but avers that it has no objections to respondent's prayer to reconsider the penalty imposed upon him. 14
Thus, the pending incidents for this Court's Resolution are the two motions for reconsideration seeking the reversal of our Resolutions dated March 12, 2018 and June 3, 2019, which cited respondent and petitioner, respectively, for indirect contempt.
Our Ruling
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent explained that he had no intention of ignoring this Court's directive. 15 His decision not to file a comment was based on his belief that there was no need to elevate the case before this Court with the parties already having agreed to an amicable settlement before the NLRC. 16 Respondent also invokes substantial justice and seeks this Court's compassion, considering the financial difficulty brought about by his lack of employment and skin disease. 17 Aside from praying that the P1,000.00 fine be dispensed with, respondent also prays for the additional period of 30 days from May 1, 2018, within which to submit his comment to the petition. 18
Respondent's refusal to comply with this Court's order directing him to file comment, cannot be excused by his so-called conviction that the present petition was rendered moot by the parties' alleged settlement before the NLRC. Regardless of the supposed existence of an amicable settlement between the parties, the question of whether the present petition is impressed with merit is for this Court alone to determine, pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In this regard, for this Court to judiciously determine the merits of the petition, Section 7 of Rule 45 empowers it not only to require the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate, but also to impose the corresponding sanctions in case of the non-filing thereof, as in this case. Accordingly, since respondent acted without candor and respect toward this Court and its directives under the Resolutions dated October 19, 2016, 19 August 7, 2017, 20 and March 12, 2018, 21 the order of this Court citing respondent for indirect contempt must stand.
Anent respondent's prayer for an additional period of 30 days from May 1, 2018 to file his comment on the instant petition, the same must also be denied for lack of merit. It should be recalled that respondent was notified of this Court's order to file comment as early as December 19, 2016, when he received the Resolution dated October 19, 2016. 22 On October 25, 2017, 23 respondent was reminded to file his comment and was given an additional period of 10 days from notice of the Resolution dated August 7, 2017 to do so. Even after citing him in contempt, this Court still gave respondent another opportunity to file comment, giving him a further extension of 10 days from notice of the Resolution dated March 12, 2018 on April 25, 2018, 24 to comply with the Court's directive. Indeed, this Court has been more than generous in affording respondent the opportunity to comply with its order since December 19, 2016. Unfortunately, despite the Court's liberality, respondent still failed to file his comment as directed.
Citing no reason for his request for an additional period of 30 days from May 1, 2018 to file his comment, respondent has not shown that he is deserving of this Court's special consideration, or liberal application of the rules. Thus, his continuous disregard for court processes will not be countenanced, as the same also further delays the resolution of the case on the merits.
Nevertheless, the circumstances of the case constrains us to modify the penalty imposed upon respondent. While the Rules do not provide that reprimand and admonition may be imposed on one found guilty of indirect contempt, case law provides that the courts may impose a penalty less than what is provided under the Rules if the circumstances merit such. 25 Considering that respondent has no means of livelihood due to his skin disease as established by the Certification dated April 30, 2018 26 attached to his motion for reconsideration, this Court grants the motion to remove the imposition of the fine of P1,000.00, or a penalty of imprisonment of five days in the case of non-payment. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that respondent is not a lawyer, nor is he represented by counsel who is knowledgeable with the intricacies of the law. Thus, this Court deems it sufficient for now to merely admonish respondent, but sternly warns him that he shall be dealt with more severely should he commit a similarly contemptuous act in the future.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
With respect to petitioner's motion for reconsideration, a careful review thereof reveals that there is no compelling reason to reconsider the Court's Resolution dated June 3, 2019. Petitioner's counsel Atty. Bassig, seeks exemption from the penalty imposed by this Court under Resolution dated June 3, 2019 for his failure to file the required comment to respondent's motion for reconsideration, on the ground of the previous handling counsel's oversight. We find that Atty. Bassig's claim is implausible.
Notably, the records disclose that Atty. Bassig is one of the counsels on record who signed the instant petition for review, 27 and that the Legal Affairs Division of the NFA, to which Atty. Bassig is currently assigned, received the Court's Resolution dated July 2, 2018, which required petitioner to file a comment to respondent's motion for reconsideration. In fact, it also appears from the records that Atty. Bassig represented the NFA as counsel even when the case was still pending before the CA. 28 That being so, the presumption in favor of Atty. Bassig's authority to represent petitioner is a strong one, considering that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is in the nature of an appeal, albeit, a special one where only questions of law are raised and involved, and is a continuation of the original case. 29 Furthermore, case law instructs that in the absence of a notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel, the Court will rightly assume that the counsel of record continues to represent his client. 30
Even assuming arguendo that another lawyer was previously in charge of the case, Atty. Bassig cannot feign ignorance to the orders of this Court by stating that the previous lawyer "failed to turnover the records" and "inadvertently overlooked to prepare and submit the required comment." To reiterate, as the counsel of record in the instant petition, it is Atty. Bassig's duty to be always mindful of his client's cause, and accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. He is also expected to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether or not he accepts it for a fee. 31 Thus, Atty. Bassig should have, at least dutifully obtained the records of the case for review or reasonably inquired on the status of the case from the previous counsel, and subsequently, file the required comment upon receipt of the notice from this Court, instead of justifying his lapses on unmeritorious grounds.
On a final note, it is the lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes. 32 As an officer of the court, a lawyer is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request, but an order, which should be complied with promptly and completely. 33 Thus, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect for their processes. 34 Hence, this Court upholds the penalty of fine in the amount of P2,000.00 previously imposed upon Atty. Bassig for indirect contempt.
There being no comment filed by respondent and without presenting any justifiable excuse, the same must be considered as having been waived.
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to PARTIALLY GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 30, 2018 of respondent Ramon Batuhan to dispense with the imposition of fine of P1,000.00, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days. He is hereby ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely, and to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 6, 2019 of petitioner NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 199-203; 206-210.
2.Id. at 197-198.
3.Id. at 225-230.
4.Id. at 218-219.
5.Id. at 11-53.
6.Id. at 56-65.
7.Id. at 36-37.
8.Id. at 191-192.
9.Id. at 194-195.
10.Id. at 197-198.
11.Id. at 199-203; 206-210.
12.Id. at 212-213.
13.Id. at 218-219.
14.Id. at 225-230.
15.Id. at 200.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 200-201.
18.Id. at 208-209.
19.Id. at 191-192.
20.Id. at 194-195.
21.Id. at 197-198.
22. As evidenced by Registry Return Receipt No. 56240; id. at 192-A.
23. As evidenced by Registry Return Receipt No. 33793, id. at 194-A.
24. As evidenced by Registry Return Receipt No. 35449; id. at 198-A.
25.In Re: Calimlim, 584 Phil. 377-385 (2008).
26.Rollo, pp. 200-204.
27.Id. at 32-33.
28.Id. at 52-53.
29.Badiola v. Hon. Court of Appeals, 575 Phil. 514, 532 (2008).
30.Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Inc., 552 Phil. 226, 233 (2007).
31.Padilla v. Atty. Samson, 816 Phil. 954, 958 (2017).
32.Miranda v. Carpio, A.C. No. 6281, January 15, 2020 (Resolution).
33.Yamon-Leach v. Astorga, A.C. No. 5987, August 28, 2019.
34.Denila v. Republic of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 206077, July 15, 2020.