Gene M. Domingo vs. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, A.C. No.

5473, January 23, 2018

TOPIC: Disbarment of Previously Disbarred Lawyer

FACTS: Complainant, Domingo, is an American citizen of Filipino descent. During a visit to the Philippines
in 2000, he sought the services of Atty. Revilla to file the case for rescission of Melchor Arruiza's adoption
(Melchor was Domingo’s cousin and was adopted by his mother without him knowing and thus allegedly
deprived him of his right) and for the settlement of his mother's estate.

The complainant alleged that the respondent represented to him that he would take on the cases on behalf
of the law firm of Agabin Verzola Hermoso Layaoen & De Castro, where he worked as an associate. He
assured petitioner that the law firm was able and willing to act as his legal counsel in the cases he intended
to institute against his adopted brother, and to undertake the transfer of his mother's properties to his and
his children's names. Trusting the representations of the respondent, the complainant agreed to engage
the services of the respondent and his law firm, and paid the initial amount of ₱80,000.00.

Being based in the United States of America, the complainant maintained constant communication with
respondent often through e-mail and sometimes by telephone to get updates on the cases. The respondent
made several misrepresentations, as follows: he had already filed the annulment of adoption, he was
processing the transfer of titles of the properties in the names of complainant and his children, he was
processing the cancellation of the claim of Melchor in the properties, he was processing the payment of the
taxes and other fees for the properties to be transferred, he was negotiating with the BIR to reduce the tax,
that the new titles were ready, that Melchor opposed the cancellation of adoption. He even boasted that he
knew many big-time politicians in Abra who could help in the case that the judge in the case would rule in
favor of the complainant if he would give the judge 10% of the value of the property.

The complainant would repeatedly request the original or at the very least copies of the decisions but
respondent repeatedly failed to comply with the requests, giving various reasons or excuses. Thus he wrote
a letter to Agabin Verzola Hermoso Layaoen & De Castro law offices to inquire about the status of the case.
The complainant was surprised to be informed by the law firm that he had never been its client. The law
firm also told him that the respondent had been forced to resign because of numerous complaints about
his performance as a lawyer. The complainant also discovered that none of the representations of the
respondent, as enumerated above, had come to pass because all of such representations were sham and
intended to induce him to remit almost half a million pesos to the respondent.

The complainant filed his complaint for disbarment in this the Court accusing the respondent of committing
acts in violation of Canons 1, 2, 13, 15 & 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

IBP: found the respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility with respect to
negligence in the performance of his duties towards his client and recommended the penalty of reprimand
with a stern warning that a repetition of the offense would warrant a more severe penalty.

The SC affirming the decision of IBP that Atty. Revilla violated CPR due to the following: Firstly, the
respondent misled the complainant into thinking that it would be his law firm was to take on the case.
Secondly, despite the fact that he had intimated to the complainant that it would be highly unlikely to still
have the adoption decree nullified due to the decree having long become final and executory, he
nonetheless accepted the case. Thirdly, he told the complainant that he had already instituted the action
for the annulment of the adoption despite not having yet done so. Fourthly, he kept on demanding more
money from the complainant although the case was not actually even moving forward. Fifthly, he continued
to make up excuses in order to avoid having to furnish to the complainant the requested copies of court
documents that, in the 􏰀rst place, he could not produce. And, lastly, he claimed that he intended to return
the money to the complainant but instead sent the letter a stale check.

A review of his record as an admitted member of the Bar shows, however, that in Que v. Revilla, Jr.,
the Court had disbarred him from the Legal Profession upon finding him guilty of violations of the
Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule

1
19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20 (d), 21 and 27 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: What penalty shall be imposed to Atty. Revilla considering the fact that he was previously
disbarred?

HELD: The SC METES the penalty of FINE of P100,000.00.

The respondent's commission of various offenses constituting professional misconduct only demonstrated
his unworthiness to remain as a member of the Legal Profession. He ought to be disbarred for such offenses
upon this complaint alone. A review of his record as an admitted member of the Bar shows, however,
that in Que v. Revilla, Jr., the Court had disbarred him from the Legal Profession upon finding him
guilty of violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and
12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20
(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. In view of his prior disbarment, we can no longer
impose the appropriate penalty of disbarment as deserved because we do not have double or
multiple disbarments in this jurisdiction.

The court cannot but note the respondent's several pleas for judicial clemency to seek his reinstatement in
the ranks of the Philippine Bar. He has backed up his pleas by adverting to his personal travails since his
disbarment. He claims, too, that his health has been failing of late considering that he had been diagnosed
to be suffering from chronic kidney disease, stage five, and has been undergoing dialysis three times a
week. His advancing age and the fragile state of his health may also be considered as a mitigating factor.
In addition, it is noteworthy that he has been devoting some time to Christian and charity pursuits, like
serving with humility as a Lay Minister at St. Peter Church in Quezon City and as a regular lecturer on the
Legal Aspects of Marriage.

Pleas for judicial clemency reflected further remorse and repentance on the part of the respondent. His
pleas appear to be sincere and heartfelt. In human experience, remorse and repentance, if coupled with
sincerity, have always been regarded as the auspicious start of forgiving on the part of the offended, and
may eventually win even an absolution for the remorseful. The Court will not be the last to forgive though it
may not forget.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, perpetual disqualification from being reinstated will be too grave a
penalty in light of the objective of imposing heavy penalties like disbarment to correct the offenders. The
penalty ought to be tempered to enable his eventual reinstatement at some point in the future. Verily,
permanently barring the respondent from reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys by virtue of this disbarrable
offense will deprive him the chance to return to his former life as an attorney.

To start the respondent on the long road to reinstatement, we 􏰀fine him in the amount of P100,000.00, a
figure believed to be a fair index of the gravity of his misdeeds. Less than such amount might undeservedly
diminish the gravity of his misdeeds. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that he committed the offense
complained of herein before the Court disbarred him in A.C. 7054. Meting the stiff fine despite his
disbarment is a way for the Court to assert its authority and competence to discipline all acts and actuations
committed by the members of the Legal Profession. The Court will not waver in doing so.

But the fine comes with the stern warning to the respondent that he must hereafter genuinely affirm his
remorse and start to demonstrate his readiness and capacity to live up once again to the exacting standards
of conduct demanded of every member of the Bar in good standing and of every officer of the Court;
otherwise, he would be sanctioned with greater severity.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND DECLARES ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. GUILTY of violating
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, but, in view of his continuing disbarment, hereby METES the penalty of FINE
of P100,000.00.