Reiterating its 1996 ruling in Halimao v. Villanueva, the Supreme Court stressed that motions for reconsideration of resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in disciplinary cases may be filed by aggrieved parties.

     In Halimao, the Court, through Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, has held that the absence of such a remedy in the Rules of Court does not preclude the filing of such a motion: “Although Rule 139-B, §12 (c) makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may therefore be filed within 15 days from notice to a party. Indeed, the filing of such motion should be encouraged before resort is made to this Court as a matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies, to afford the agency rendering the judgment an opportunity to correct any error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or misappreciation of the evidence.”

     In a 13-page unanimous decision penned 10 years later by Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, the Court added, “Certainly, prudence dictates that the IBP be given the opportunity to correct its mistakes, if any, by way of motions for reconsideration before this Court takes cognizance of the case. This is to further insure that the grievance procedure will be allowed to duly run its course – a form of filtering process, particularly respecting matters within the competence of the IBP, before we step in.”

     The Court thus laid down the following guidelines to be observed by the IBP in disciplinary cases against lawyers:

     1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution containing its findings and recommendations within fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt by the parties thereon;

     2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an aggrieved party, the IBP must first resolve the same prior to elevating to this Court the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case;

     3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP is directed to forthwith transmit to this Court, for final action, the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case;

     4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IBP may file a petition for review before this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed; and

     5. For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where there exist pending motions for reconsideration filed in due time before the IBP, the latter is directed to withdraw from this Court the subject resolutions together with the whole records of the cases, within 30 days from notice, and, thereafter, to act on said motions with reasonable dispatch.

     Consistent with the foregoing, the Court remanded the case to the IBP for the proper disposition of respondent Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyela’s motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution recommending her suspension for two years.

     Concurring in the decision are Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno and Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Cancio C. Garcia, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (AC No. 7055, Ramientas v. Reyala, July 31, 2006)