A.C. No. 4955 - ANTONIO CONLU, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA, JR..R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, as the CA wrote, the motion for reconsideration of the February resolution which bore the mailing date May 8, 1997 cannot but be considered as filed way out of time. In light of these successive setbacks, a disgusted Antonio got the case records back from Atty. Ireneo and personally filed on October 13, 1997 another motion for reconsideration. By Resolution of December 3, 1997, the CA again denied [6] this motion for the reason that the prejudicial impact of the belated filing by his former counsel of the first motion for reconsideration binds Antonio. Forthwith, Antonio elevated his case to the Court on a petition for certiorari but the Court would later dismiss the petition and his subsequent motion to reconsider the denial. Such was the state of things when Antonio lodged this instant administrative case for disbarment with a prayer for damages. To support his claim for damages, Antonio asserts having suffered sleepless nights, mental torture and anguish as a result of Atty. Ireneo's erring ways, besides which Antonio also lost a valuable real property subject of Civil Case No. 1048. Following Atty. Ireneo's repeated failure to submit, as ordered, his comment, a number of extensions of time given notwithstanding, [7] the Court referred the instant case, docketed as Administrative Case No. 4955, to its Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and recommendation. Acting on OBC's Report and Recommendation [8] dated November 23, 2000, the Court, by Resolution of January 31, 2001, directed Atty. Ireneo to show cause within ten (10) days from notice--later successively extended via Resolutions dated July 16 and 29, 2002--why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failing to file his comment and to comply with the filing of it. In separate resolutions, the Court (a) imposed on Atty. Ireneo a fine of PhP 2,000; [9] (b) ordered his arrest but which the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) cannot effect for the reason: "whereabouts unknown"; [10] (c) considered him as having waived his right to file comment; and (d) referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for report, investigation and recommendation. [11] At the IBP, Atty. Ireneo desisted from addressing his administrative case, his desistance expressed by not attending the mandatory conference or filing the required position paper. On the basis of the pleadings, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Ireneo liable for violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with warning. The salient portions of the investigating commissioner's Report and Recommendation [12] read as follows: Uncontroverted and uncontested are respondent's inability to file appellant's Brief, his futile attempts to mislead the Court of Appeals that he did not personally received