Case Digest (A.C. No. 12661) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Petitioner Benjamin M. Katipunan, Jr. worked as a Master Mariner for Philippine Transmarine Company, Inc. from October 12, 1996 until 2003, when a heart ailment rendered him totally and permanently disabled. Denied disability benefits by his employer, he secured a Labor Arbiter’s award of US$60,000 on January 25, 2005, but pursued US$90,000 on appeal. He engaged respondent Atty. Rebene C. Carrera at the NLRC, before the Court of Appeals, and ultimately filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. After filing a “Verified Compliance and Statement of Material Dates,” the Court dismissed his petition by Resolution of January 27, 2010, notice received by respondent on February 25, 2010. Carrera failed to inform Katipunan of the denial; when the petitioner inquired in March and May 2010, Carrera falsely represented the petition as still pending. Learning of the resolution only upon personally inspecting the case file on May 11, 2010, Katipunan demanded damages, a... Case Digest (A.C. No. 12661) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Professional Relationship
- Complainant: Benjamin M. Katipunan, Jr., a former Master Mariner who left employment in 2003 due to total and permanent disability; filed a labor case against Philippine Transmarine Company, Inc. for disability benefits.
- Respondent: Atty. Rebene C. Carrera, engaged by complainant to represent him from the NLRC proceedings up to the Supreme Court.
- Judicial Proceedings and Respondent’s Conduct
- Labor Arbiter Decision (Jan. 25, 2005): awarded complainant US$60,000. NLRC reversed (Apr. 6 & Aug. 28, 2006); CA affirmed; petition for review filed with the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court Resolution (Jan. 27, 2010): denied petition for failure to show reversible error; respondent received a copy on Feb. 25, 2010 but failed to inform complainant.
- Client Inquiries: complainant visited respondent in March and May 2010; respondent falsely stated the case was still pending. Complainant ultimately discovered the denial by examining the case folder on May 11, 2010. Respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration nor formally withdraw.
- Administrative Proceedings
- Complaint before IBP: alleged violations of CPR Canon 18 (Rules 18.02–18.04), Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, the Lawyer’s Oath, and Sec. 27, Rule 138, RR Court.
- IBP-CBD Report (July 21, 2011): recommended censure; IBP-BOG Resolution (Mar. 20, 2013) affirmed; all motions for reconsideration denied; case elevated to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did respondent violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics, the Lawyer’s Oath, and Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court by failing to inform complainant of the Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for review on certiorari?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)