A.C. NO. 7298 (FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 05-1565) - FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent. On 26 May 2006, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. [8] On 10 July 2006, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted to the Supreme Court the notice of said Resolution and the records of the case. [9] Thereafter, on 18 August 2006, respondent filed with the IBP a Motion for Reconsideration (for Modification of Decision) [10] reiterating his claim of damages against complainant in the amount of four hundred million pesos (P400,000,000.00), or its equivalent in dollars, for filing the "false, malicious, defamers [sic], fraudulent, illegal fabricators [sic], malevolent[,] oppressive, evasive filing [of] a groundless and false suit." [11] Complainant thereafter filed this Petition for Review (of the Resolution of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) [12] alleging that he personally submitted and filed with the IBP his position paper, after serving a copy thereof on respondent by registered mail. He further alleges that he was deprived of his right to due process when the IBP dismissed his complaint without considering his position paper and without ruling on the merits thereof. Complainant accordingly prays for the reversal and setting aside of the 26 May 2006 Resolution [13] of the IBP Board of Governors and the remand of the case to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for proper adjudication and disposition on the merits. Based on the records, there is truth to complainant's assertion that he filed his position paper on 21 December 2005, after serving a copy of the same to respondent. The IBP stamp on the front page of said document shows that it was received by the IBP on 21 December 2005. The registry receipt attached to the same document also shows that it was sent by registered mail to respondent on the same date. [14] Complainant, however, omitted to offer any explanation in his petition before this Court for his failure to attach a certification against forum shopping in his complaint against respondent. The requirement of a certification against forum shopping was originally required by Circular No. 28-91, dated 8 February 1994, issued by this Court for every petition filed with the Court or the Court of Appeals. Administrative Circular No. 04-94, made effective on 1 April 1994, expanded the certification requirement to include cases filed in courts and quasi-judicial agencies below this Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2) of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [15] Said rule states that a violation thereof would constitute contempt of court and be cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel of the party concerned. [16] The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors took against c