Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37650)
Facts:
Visayan Stevedore Transportation Company (Hinigaran Branch) and Rafael Xaudaro v. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-37650, February 28, 1974, Second Division, Fernando, J., writing for the Court. The petition arose from an original petition for review on certiorari filed in this Court challenging a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations; other named respondents included the United Workers and Farmers' Association (UWFA), individual unionists, and a member of the Bar, Atty. Jose K. Manguiat, Jr.
On November 9, 1973 the Court resolved to give no due course to the petition and required the respondents to file a comment within ten days from notice. Thereafter Atty. Manguiat, identifying himself as counsel for the Court of Industrial Relations, filed on November 16, 1973 a motion requesting a thirty-day extension to file the comment, which the Court granted. The extended period expired on December 26, 1973 and no comment had been filed within that time.
Because no comment had been received, on February 5, 1974 the Court issued a further resolution requiring Atty. Manguiat to file the overdue comment and to explain his failure to do so within ten days from notice. Instead of the ordered explanation and a full comment, Manguiat filed on February 11, 1974 a two‑page pleading styled a "manifestation and comment." In it he stated that, due to pressure of work, he had requested Atty. Mariano Capanas, a legal officer of the Court of Industrial Relations, to prepare the comment before Capanas left for Christmas vacation and that he (Manguiat) believed in good faith that the comment had been filed.
The two‑page submission also argued, by bare assertion, that findings of fact by the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive and cited Philippine Engineering Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L‑27880, September 30, 1971. The Supreme Court found Manguiat's explanation and the substance of his comment inadequate: his delegation was a mere request not an order, his "good faith" belief did not excuse the omission, he should have sought another extension if ne...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Jose K. Manguiat, Jr.'s failure to file the comment within the extended period, together with his explanation, justify disciplinary action?
- Was the "manifestation and comment" filed by Atty. Manguiat adequate to satisfy the Court's requirement that respondents comment on the petition, particularly with respect to addressing the principal legal question and the proper use of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)