[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 150-2017, July 21, 2017 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 150-2017, July 21, 2017 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 150-2017, July 21, 2017 ]

TO : THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. TERESITA C. MARBIBI FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR SIX (6) MONTHS

For your information and guidance, quoted hereunder is the Resolution dated 18 June 2014 of the Second Division in Administrative Case No. 9857, entitled "J oie S. Ramos v. Atty. Teresita C. Marbibi," to wit:

Acting on the petition for review on certiorari dated 30 March 2013 by respondent assailing the IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XLX-2011-307 dated IS May 2011 which reversed the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and suspended respondent for six (6) months from the practice of law, with warning, and the IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XX-2012-675 dated 29 December 2012 which denied respondent's motion for reconsideration thereon there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission, and considering that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath when she filed pre-emptive cases to put the venue in Manila, subjecting complainant unnecessary expenses in traveling to and from Zamboanga, and when she took the criminal cases as personal affront and used civil cases as restitution for the inconvenience suffered by her client, and that as correctly pointed out by the Commission, respondent's action demonstrated a misuse of the legal processes, contrary to the aim of every law suit, and that anent respondent's allegation that the Board of Governors committed grave error when it reversed the recommendation for the dismissal of the case, the same likewise has no merit since the primary duties of the IBP and/or the Board of Governors are precisely to investigate the antecedents facts of a case, to determine it merits, if any, and to make recommendations as to actions that should be taken by the Court, and therefore can recommend suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, subject to the approval of the Court; and that the withdrawal of a complaint is not also sufficient to dismiss the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for review on certiorari and AFFIRM the Resolution dated IS May 2011 suspending respondent for six (6) months from the practice of law, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

As stated in her Second Motion for Reconsideration, respondent received the Resolution dated 28 January 2015, which DENIED with FINALITY her First Motion for Reconsideration, on 14 May 2015.

21 July 2017

(SGD.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator