Que Vs RevillA

CONRADO N. QUE, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E.
REVILLA, JR., Respondent. A.C. No. 7054, November 11, 2014
FACTS:
Que filed a disbarment case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, case against Atty. Anastacio Revilla
of committing the following violations 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 for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals, two petitions for annulment of title before the RTC, a petition for annulment of judgment
before the RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC to assail and overturn the final
judgments of the MeTC and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent’s clients. The
respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing
fully well that these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The respondent also repeatedly
attacked the complainant’s and his siblings’ titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case.
2. The respondent’s commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to impede, obstruct,
and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of the
complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case.
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. The complainant alleged
that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation; the respondent also deceived his clients
(who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.
4. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and
reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo 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 complainant
further alleged that the respondent of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in a civil case when no such
authority was ever given to him.
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:
Yes, the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct,
and the penalty these transgressions should carry. 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 of the CPR which makes it obligatory for a
lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the end 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.
The respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR, as well as 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.
For these acts, we find the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of CPR for violating the lawyer’s duty to
observe candor and fairness in his dealing with the court.
In defending his clients’ interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01 of CPR which obligates a
lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only such means as are consistent with truth and honor.
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
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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the respondent committed various acts of professional
misconduct and thereby failed to live up to the exacting ethical standards imposed on members of the Bar.
Given the respondent's multiple violations, his past record as previously discussed, and the nature of these
violations which shows the readiness to disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for the orderly
administration of justice, we believe and so hold that the appropriate action of this Court is to disbar the
respondent to keep him away from the law profession and from any significant role in the administration of
justice which he has disgraced. He is a continuing risk, too, to the public that the legal profession serves. Not
even his ardor and overzealousness in defending the interests of his client can save him. Such traits at the
expense of everything else, particularly the integrity of the profession and the orderly administration of
justice, this Court cannot accept nor tolerate.
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.
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, and hold that the respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Que Vs RevillA

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

Que Vs RevillA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONRADO N. QUE, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E.

REVILLA, JR., Respondent. A.C. No. 7054, November 11, 2014

You might also like