Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 16 2003.

A.C. No. 3956 (Kapisanang Tanglaw ng Pangarap sa Talayan [KATAPAT] vs. Atty. Roberto T. Neri.)

Complainant Kapisanang Tanglaw ng Pangarap sa Talayan [KATAPAT] filed this administrative case for disbarment on 2 December 1992 alleging that respondent Atty. Roberto T. Neri, then employed as Executive Officer IV of the City Government of Quezon City, continuously demanded money from complainant’s Members who were among the urban poor of the city despite the fact that he was already receiving salaries as such Executive Officer who has been directly tasked by the city government to handle the expropriation case of a certain parcel of land in Quezon City the direct beneficiaries of which were complainant’s members.

Respondent was required to comment on the administrative complaint per our Resolution dated 27 January 1993. When respondent failed to file the required comment, we issued Resolution dated 31, July 1995 requiring him to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and to file the comment within ten (10) days from notice.

Respondent still failed to comply. Consequently we issued Resolution dated 29 July 1996 imposing a fine of P500.00 upon respondent payable within ten (10) days from notice, or else suffer imprisonment for five (5) days if the fine was not paid within the prescribed period. In addition, respondent was directed’ to submit the required comment on the administrative complaint.

Respondent moved to reconsider the Resolution of 29 July 1996 alleging that the instant, case is similar to Adm. Case No. 3939 entitled “Robegelio Majait v. Atty. Roberto Neri” of the Third Division of this Court wherein he already submitted his explanation and the required comment as early as 5 September 1995. Respondent alleged that the complainant in said Adm. Case No. 3939 is the president of herein complainant, and that said Adm. Case No. 3939 has already been referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation per Resolution dated 22 January 1996 of the Third Division. We required complainant to comment.

In its “Salungat na Pagpapahayag sa Mungkahi Pagsaalang-alang na Inihain ng Inirereklamo sa Reklamo” which was actually complainant’s required comment on. aforesaid respondent’s motion for reconsideration’ of the Resolution dated 29 July 1996, complainant contradicted respondent’s claim averring that the instant case is not the same as Adm. Case No. 3939. complainant alleged that while the instant case was filed by Kapisanang Tanglaw ng Pangarap sa Talayan or KATAPAT under the leadership of Mr. Ignacio S. Lainez, Jr., Adm. Case No. 3939, on the other hand, was filed by Kapisanan ng Maralitang Mamamayan ng Taga-Tatalon or KMMTI under the leadership of Mr. Robageo A. Majait. The instant case is therefore quite different froth Adm. Case No. 3939 mentioned by respondent in explaining his failure to file comment on this administrative case.

Respondent was required to file “comment”[1]on the “Salungat no Pagpapahayag sa Mungkahi Pagsaalang-alang na Inihain ng Inirerekiamo sa Reklamo.”

For failure to comply with the foregoing directive, respondent was again required in our Resolution of 28 July 1997 to show cause why ‘he should not be administratively dealt with’ or held in contempt for such failure.

In his compliance entitled “Motion for Extension of Time” dated 22 September 1997 respondent explained that his failure to comment on complainant’s “Salungat na Pagpapahayag sa Mungkahi Pagsaalang-.alang na Inihain ng Inireklamo sa Reklamo” was due to the fact that his staff was still looking for his record of this case which were apparently missing. He prayed that an extension’ of fifteen (15) days from 22 September 1997 be given him within which to file the required comment.

We granted the extension, in our Resolution dated 10 November 1997.

Meanwhile, this case was transferred from the First to the present Division in the internal resolution of 11 January 1999.

The Division Clerk. of Court now reports that respondent failed to comply with our Resolution of 28 July 1997 requiring him to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for failure to file the required comment on complainant’s. “Salungat na Pagpapahayag sa Mungkahi Pagsaalang-alang na Inihain ng Inirereklamo sa Reklamo” and to file the said comment within the period which expired on 7 October 1997.

ACCORDINGLY, for failure to comply with our Resolution dated 28 July 1997 requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for failure to file comment on complainant’s “Salungat na Pagpapahayag sa Mungkahi Pagsaalang-alang na Inihain ng Inirereklamo sa Reklamo” dated 19 September 1996 as required in our Resolution of 27 November 1996, and to file said comment within the period which expired on 7 October 1997, respondent Atty. Roberto T. Neri is FINED P2,000.00 payable within ten (10) days from notice or else suffer imprisonment for five (5) days if said fine is not ‘paid within’ the period. Respondent is moreover DIRECTED to COMPLY with the aforesaid resolution requiring him to show cause why he failed to file comment on complainant’s “Salungat” and to file the required comment, both within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

[1] Per Resolution dated 27 November 1996. Although the term used in this resolution was “comment” on complainant’s “Salungat na Pagpapahayag sa Mungkahi Pagsaalang-alang na Inihain ng Inirereklamo sa Reklamo” what was actually meant was a reply’ thereon since said “Salungat” was actually ‘complainant’s comment on respondent’s motion far reconsideration of our resolution dated 29 July 1996 imposing a fine of P500.00 on respondent for failure to file comment on the administrative complaint.