A.C. No. 7054 - Que Vs Atty. Revilla - Case Digest

A.C. No.
7054, December 04, 2009

CONRADO QUE, COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. RESPONDENT
FACTS:
In a complaint for disbarment, Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.
(respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on
Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
(1) The respondent's abuse of court remedies and processes by filing a petitions to assail and overturn the
final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered
against the respondent's clients;
(2) The respondent's commission of forum-shopping;
(3) The respondent's lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the courts by resorting to
falsehood and deception to misguide, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice. The
respondent asserted falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition for
annulment of judgment by fabricating an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court
which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case.
(4) The respondent's willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name
and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous counsel of the respondent's
clients.
(5) The respondent's deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court in the petition for
annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already deceased;
(6) The respondent's willful and fraudulent appearance in the second petition for annulment of title as
counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to do so.
Additionally, the complaint accused the respondent of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case
No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever given to him.
The Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for two (2) years. On reconsideration, the Board of Governors reduced the respondent's suspension
from the practice of law to one (1) year.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional
misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
HELD:
Except for the penalty, we agree with the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner
Cunanan and the Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline.
Abuse of court procedures and processes
Under the circumstances, the respondent's repeated attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed
by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his client. These are already uncalled for
measures to avoid the enforcement of final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. In these attempts, the
respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it
obligatory for a lawyer to "observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends
of justice." By his actions, the respondent used procedural rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and
efficient administration of justice, resulting in prejudice to the winning parties in that case.
Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping
The respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of
multiple actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they
tend to degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and add to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
Willful, intentional and deliberate falsehood before the courts
The records also reveal that the respondent committed willful, intentional and deliberate falsehood in the
pleadings he filed with the lower courts.
The records further disclose that despite knowledge of the falsity of his allegations, the respondent took
advantage of his position and the trust reposed in him by his clients (who are all squatters) to convince
them to support, through their affidavits, his false claims on what allegedly transpired in the June 28, 2002
hearing. For these acts, respondent is liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 the CPR. This provision states:
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT Rule 10.01 - A lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the
Court to be misled by an artifice.
In defending his clients' interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which reads:
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW Rule 19.01
- A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his clients x x x
This Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only such means as are consistent with
truth and honor. He should not prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly
groundless actions. The recital of what the respondent did to prevent the execution of the judgment
against his clients, shows that he actually committed what the above rule expressly prohibits.
Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers
To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment of judgment, the respondent
attacked the name and reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of deliberate neglect, corrupt
motives and connivance with the counsel for the adverse party.
Under these circumstances, we believe that the respondent liable for violating Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to "conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and
candor toward his professional colleagues."
Unauthorized appearances
In both instances, the respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when he
undertook the unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant
without authority from the latter or from the latter's representative or, in the absence thereof, without
leave of court.
We cannot give credence to the respondent's claim that the disbarment case was filed because the
counsel of the complainant, Atty. Uy, had an axe to grind against him.
The sui generis nature of a disbarment case renders the underlying motives of the complainants
unimportant and with very little relevance. The purpose of a disbarment proceeding is mainly to
determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and a participant in the
dispensation of justice - an issue where the complainant's personal motives have little relevance. For this
reason, disbarment proceedings may be initiated by the Court motu proprio upon information of an
alleged wrongdoing.
Hence, we give little or no weight to the alleged personal motivation that drove the complainant Que and
his counsel to file the present disbarment case.
Additionally, disbarment is merited because this is not the respondent's first ethical infraction of the same
nature. We penalized him in Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo Garcia versus Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla for his
willful and intentional falsehood before the court; for misuse of court procedures and processes to delay
the execution of a judgment; and for collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. We
showed leniency then by reducing his penalty to suspension for six (6) months. We cannot similarly treat
the respondent this time; it is clear that he did not learn any lesson from his past experience and since
then has exhibited traits of incorrigibility. It is time to put a finis to the respondent's professional legal
career for the sake of the public, the profession and the interest of justice.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM Resolution of the Board of Governors of the IBP
Committee on Bar Discipline insofar as respondent Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. is found liable for
professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer's 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. However, we modify the penalty the IBP
imposed, and hold that the respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of law.

A.C. No. 7054 - Que Vs Atty. Revilla - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No. 7054 - Que Vs Atty. Revilla - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

7054, December 04, 2009

(2) The respondent's commission of forum-shopping;

The Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

Abuse of court procedures and processes

Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping

Willful, intentional and deliberate falsehood before the courts

You might also like