Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 87 views

    Orbit Transportation V WCC

    Uploaded by

    Pamela Gutierrez Pasia
    1) The Court reprimanded counsels for petitioner for failing to disclose material facts from the respondent commission's decision in their petition, which showed that the petition lacked merit. 2) Specifically, counsel did not disclose that the $5,000 payment was from the deceased's life insurance, not compensation, and that respondent was entitled to compensation as the claim was uncontested. 3) The Court held that counsel violated rules requiring petitions to contain a concise statement of issues and that any question raised must be distinctly set forth, warranting the reprimand.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Orbit Transportation V WCC

    Uploaded by

    Pamela Gutierrez Pasia
    87 views1 page
    1) The Court reprimanded counsels for petitioner for failing to disclose material facts from the respondent commission's decision in their petition, which showed that the petition lacked merit. 2) Specifically, counsel did not disclose that the $5,000 payment was from the deceased's life insurance, not compensation, and that respondent was entitled to compensation as the claim was uncontested. 3) The Court held that counsel violated rules requiring petitions to contain a concise statement of issues and that any question raised must be distinctly set forth, warranting the reprimand.

    Original Title

    212767511-Orbit-Transportation-v-WCC.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Court reprimanded counsels for petitioner for failing to disclose material facts from the respondent commission's decision in their petition, which showed that the petition lacked merit. 2) Specifically, counsel did not disclose that the $5,000 payment was from the deceased's life insurance, not compensation, and that respondent was entitled to compensation as the claim was uncontested. 3) The Court held that counsel violated rules requiring petitions to contain a concise statement of issues and that any question raised must be distinctly set forth, warranting the reprimand.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    87 views1 page

    Orbit Transportation V WCC

    Uploaded by

    Pamela Gutierrez Pasia
    1) The Court reprimanded counsels for petitioner for failing to disclose material facts from the respondent commission's decision in their petition, which showed that the petition lacked merit. 2) Specifically, counsel did not disclose that the $5,000 payment was from the deceased's life insurance, not compensation, and that respondent was entitled to compensation as the claim was uncontested. 3) The Court held that counsel violated rules requiring petitions to contain a concise statement of issues and that any question raised must be distinctly set forth, warranting the reprimand.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Orbit Transportation v.

    WCC

    FACTS: The Court administers a reprimand to counsels for petitioner for not having pleaded and instead having suppressed from their statement of the case and
    of the questions of law involved in the petition material facts found in the respondent commission's decision sought to be appealed from, which show the
    petition's lack of merit.

    Messrs. Sergio D. Vendero and Renerio R. Bartonico as counsel for petitioner filed the petition at bar for review of respondent Workmen's Compensation
    Commission's decision and resolution directing petitioner to pay respondent-claimant (as grandchild-dependent of the deceased driver-employee) inter alia the
    principal sum of P4,360.00 as compensation and burial expenses.

    In their "summary statement of the matters involved," counsel claimed that the "questions of law involved" were:

    1. It was an error not to consider the payment of P5,000.00 in Philippine currency as full and complete payment of the compensation for the death of Ramon
    Crespo.

    2. It was an error to disregard the express and obvious statement in Exhibit 1 of such payment.

    Counsel further contended that "in this particular case, the petitioner voluntarily paid the amount of P5,000.00 in cash. the Workmen's Compensation
    Commission or any government agency for that matter cannot say that voluntary payment and the evidence of such payment violate the provisions of Act 3428
    simply because the same did not pass through its office," and that "(T)here can be no other conclusion but that the entire case hinges on the question of whether
    or not the payment of P5,000.00 in cash is in full and complete compensation for the death of Ramon Crespo in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation
    Law. This matter is certainly a question of law."

    Court denied the petition and required counsel to show cause why they "should not be disciplinary dealt with for suppressing from (their) statement of the case
    and questions of law involved in the petition the material facts found in the Workmen's Compensation Commission's decision 'that the amount of P5,000.00
    claimed to be the compensation for the death of Ramon Crespo by the respondent (herein petitioner) is the proceeds of the insurance procured by the deceased
    with premiums paid from the daily income of the late Ramon Crespo' and that the claim was an uncontroverted claim with the apparent intent of misleading the
    Court as to the merits of the petition.'"

    Counsel promptly filed their "explanation and apology".

    ISSUE W/N counsel should be reprimanded for suppression of material information.

    HELD: YES. The Court has time and again stressed that members of the bar owe fidelity to the courts as well as to their clients and that they must show faithful
    adherence to the provisions of Rule 7, section 5 that "the signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the
    best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay" with the admonition therein that "for a
    willful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary action."

    The cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is required so that needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided leaving the
    courts free to devote their time and attention to meritorious and truly contentious cases. In this, the attorney plays a major role of advising his client to refrain from
    seeking further appellate review and action in plainly untenable cases.

    Counsel's proffered excuse for their suppression of the material facts that the receipt signed by the deceased employee's heirs was in payment of the deceased's
    insurance (not compensation) and that respondent was entitled to the compensation award as the claim was uncontroverted, to wit, that a copy of respondent
    commission's decision was attached to the petition, manifestly violates the requirement of Rule 43, section 2 that "the petition shall contain a concise statement
    of the issues involved and the ground relied on for the petition ..." and that "the question raised must be distinctly set forth in the petition."

    ACCORDINGLY, the Court administers a reprimand to Attys. Sergio D. Vendero and Renerio R. Bartonico.

    You might also like