A.C. No. 3825 - REYNALDO HALIMAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. DANIEL VILLANUEVA AND INOCENCIO PEFIANCO FERRER, JR..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondents Attys. Daniel Villanueva and Inocencio P. Ferrer, Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Two motions for reconsideration of this resolution were filed by the complainant therein, both of which were denied, the first one on September 23, 1992 and the second one on November 9, 1992. While the complainant (Danilo Hernandez) in Administrative Case No. 3835 is different from the complainant in the present case, the fact is that they have an identity of interest, as the Investigating Commissioner ruled. Both complainants were employed at the Oo Kian Tiok Compound at the time of the alleged incident. Both complain of the same act allegedly committed by respondents. The resolution of this Court in Administrative Case No. 3835 is thus conclusive in this case, it appearing that the complaint in this case is nothing but a duplication of the complaint of Danilo Hernandez in the prior case. In dismissing the complaint brought by Danilo Hernandez in the prior case, this Court categorically found "want of a prima facie showing of professional misconduct on the part of the respondents [Attorneys Daniel Villanueva and Inocencio Ferrer, Jr.]". WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, is AFFIRMED and the complaint against respondents is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.