PLUS BUILDERS, INC. A.C.
No. 7056
and EDGARDO C.
GARCIA, Present:
Complainants,
PANGANIBAN,
CJ,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
GARCIA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ
Atty.
ANASTACIO E.
REVILLA,
JR., Promulgated:
Respondent. Septiembre 13, 2006
x- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, CJ:
By their oath
and under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers must uphold truth
and justice above everything else, even above their own and their client’s
interests. They must be willing and able
to stand for their convictions against all odds; to carry on in spite of
seemingly insurmountable opposition; and to be beacons for the weak, the
oppressed and the marginalized. For
failing miserably to live by this oath and Code, respondent must be sanctioned.
This administrative case originated
from a Verified Petition for Disbarment[1]
filed by Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). Complainants
charged Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. with committing a willful and
intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure and processes
to delay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating with non-lawyers in the
illegal practice of law.
The
material averments of the Complaint are as follows:
“On
“On
“[Tenants/farmers] filed
several verified pleadings as part of the records of DARAB cases
above-mentioned alleging under oath that they were ‘MAGSASAKANG NAMUMUWISAN’ or
mere tenants of subject properties, acknowledging the rights of the registered
owners at that time, even before the ownership and title were transferred to
Petitioner/ Complainant Plus Builders, Inc. x x x.
“On Dec[ember] 17, 1999,
counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS who at that time was Atty. Damian S. J. Vellaseca,
filed a pro-forma Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation x x x. As a result, PARAD did not give due course to
the same x x x.
“On
“On May 31, 2001, Respondent Anastacio Revilla
Jr., knowing that there was a monetary judgment by way of Disturbance
Compensation granted to Tenants/Farmers, x x x filed a ‘Motion for Leave of
Court to Allow Correction of Caption and Amendment of Judgment’ (referring to
the Decision of PARAD of Cavite dated November 15, 1999 x x x) with a prayer ‘x
x x to include the name of the KALAYAAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION representing
the following respondents herein above stated in the caption of [the]
pleading.’ Also, a Contract of
Retainership dated
“After
realizing that his motion failed to give him beneficial monetary gain from the
PARAD judgment, a Petition for Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Issuance
of Temporary Restraining Order and to Quash Alias Writ of Execution with
Demolition plus Damages dated July 18, 2001 was filed by Respondent x x x before
the DARAB Central Office, Quezon City, notwithstanding the fact that this
instant case was appealed by another lawyer (Atty. Willy Roxas). x x x.
“On the basis of this
Petition, a Temporary Restraining Order by the DARAB Central Office, Quezon
City, was issued on July 25, 2001 and an extension of or another Temporary
Restraining Order was issued dated August 24, 2001, as a result of the active
participation of Respondent x x x.
“Emboldened
by the two (2) TRO’s coming from DARAB Central Office, Respondent x x x filed
an Indirect Contempt case dated August 28, 2001 against Plus Builders Inc. and
their Board of Directors, Edgardo Garcia and [its] counsel Atty. Leopoldo S.
Gonzalez before the same Office. x x x.
“Sensing a series of
orders against herein Petitioners and considering, further, that the DARAB
Central Office refused to hear arguments from Petitioners on the two (2)
questionable TRO’s, Petitioners decided to elevate the matter to the Court of
Appeals by way of a Petition for Certiorari.
A Decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals on [December] 20, 2001
stating that:
‘WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
orders issued by the DARAB are hereby declared NULL AND VOID for having been
issued without jurisdiction.
Consequently, this Court sees no impediment for the IMPLEMENTATION of
the
‘SO
ORDERED.’
“This incident was
further elevated to the Supreme Court by Respondent x x x through a Petition,
but said Petition was dismissed with finality x x x.
“Enraged by his defeat,
Respondent x x x filed a verified “Action to Quiet Title” before the Regional
Trial Court of Imus, Cavite praying for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),
among others, to deliberately and maliciously stop the enforcement of the
Decisions of the higher courts to implement the PARAD Decision dated November
15, 1999. x x x.
x
x x x x x x x x
“Respondent signed his
pleading under a group of non-lawyers joining him in the practice of law as
[KDC] LEGAL SERVICES, LAW OFFICERS AND ASSOCIATES which included KDC as law
partners in violation of the Rules on the practice of law with
non-lawyers. As a matter of fact, under
the Retainership Contract submitted by Respondent before the PARAD of Cavite,
it was specifically mentioned that legal fees were to be collected as counsel
on record for the cooperative and respondent.
Therefore, this contract was effectively used [for] unlawful
solicitation of clients in the practice of law with non-lawyers, being the
cooperative (KDC) to become “counsel on record [sic] x x x.
“On March 6, 2003, the
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite quashed the earlier issued TRO and
dismissed the case on the ground of ‘res judicata’ because the Court of Appeals
ruled that, ‘x x x the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator of DAR dated
November 15, 1999 has already become final x x x’ and that, prescription does
not run against registered land. x x x.”[2]
In his Answer[3]
dated
“Notwithstanding the
claim of said farmers of tenancy relationship with [the] previous owner in the
decisions of PARA[D], Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in the DISTURBANCE
COMPENSATION CASES, (DARAB CASE NO. R-402-025-99; R-402-026-99; R-402-027-99;
R-402-028-99; R-402-029-99; R-402-030-99; R-402-031-99) the said farmers, are
not precluded, by any law or jurisprudence, from entertaining in good faith an
opinion or belief that they could legally be considered as owners of the
subject-property precisely because of the undisputed fact that they have been
in possession thereof in an open, continuous, public, uninterrupted possession
for more than fifty (50) years. x x x.
“It was on the basis of
[a] sincere and honest belief and opinion o[f] acquiring ownership of the land
through prescription that the said farmers had decided to pursue and file the
Action to Quiet Title in Civil Case No. 2763-03, before the RTC of Imus,
Cavite, Branch 20 x x x.
x
x x x x x x x x
“It should be stressed
that the decisions of the
x
x x x x x x x x
“As new counsel of the
said farmers x x x, respondent has the complete discretion [of] what legal
strategy or cause of action to undertake on their behalf and the complainant
and their counsel have no business or right to interfere with or dictate [upon]
the respondent on how to protect the rights and interests of said farmers under
the applicable law and jurisprudence.
x
x x x x x x x x
“Respondent respectfully
submits that he has not committed any illegal, unlawful, unjust, wrongful or
immoral acts towards the complainant.
Respondent, in good faith filed the aforesaid cases (Action to Quiet
Title, RTC, Imus, Cavite, Branch 20; and Petition for Issuance of Preliminary
Injunction and TRO, and Complaint before the Ombudsman), as a lawyer sworn to
uphold justice and the law who was the bounden duty to exert utmost efforts to
defend his client and protect his right, no matter how guilty or evil he
appears to be, especially if they are poor and uneducated like the said
farmers.”[4]
In a Reply[5]
dated
On
In
his
Moreover,
Commissioner Espina opined that the charge that respondent had been engaged in
the unlawful practice of law was neither satisfactorily explained nor specifically
denied by the latter. The failure of
respondent to do so led to the presumption that the allegation was true.
Thus,
his suspension from the practice of law for two years was recommended by the
investigating commissioner. In Resolution No. XVII-2005-172,[9]
the board of governors of the IBP adopted the findings and recommendation of
IBP Commissioner Espina.
The Resolution, together with the records of
the case, was transmitted to this Court for final action,[10]
pursuant to Rule 139-B Section 12(b).
We agree with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP board of governors.
Lawyers are officers of the court, called
upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system,[11]
protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law.[12] They are expected to act with honesty in all
their dealings, especially with the courts.
Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from
committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts
to be misled by any artifice.[13] Moreover, they are obliged to observe the
rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.[14]
Good faith, fairness and candor constitute
the essence of membership in the legal profession.[15] Thus, while lawyers owe fidelity to the cause
of their client, they must never abuse their right of recourse to the courts by
arguing a case that has repeatedly been rejected. Neither should they use their
knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass a party or to misuse judicial
processes. These acts constitute serious
transgression of their professional oath.[16]
In the present case, respondent claims good
faith in pursuing the cause of his clients.
The records show, however, that his course of legal action was obviously
a stratagem. It was meant to delay unduly the execution of the provincial
adjudicator’s Decision dated
It must be noted that when the Court of Appeals and this
Court upheld that Decision, respondent resorted to a different forum to pursue
his clients’ lost cause. In the
disturbance compensation case, he represented his clients as tenants and
acknowledged that complainants were the owners of the subject land. In the action to quiet title, however, he
conveniently repudiated his previous admission by falsely alleging that his
clients were adverse possessors claiming bona fide ownership. Consequently, he
was able to obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the execution of
the provincial adjudicator’s Decision.
Clearly, he was shielding his clients from the Order of
execution. Contrary to his later claim
of ownership of the land, he cannot feign ignorance of his previous admission
of a tenancy relationship existing between his clients and complainants, as
correctly observed by IBP Commissioner Espina.
The propensity of respondent for doublespeak was also
revealed in his declaration that his clients were pauper litigants. His prayer for an exemption to pay court
fees, on the ground that they did not have sufficient income,[17]
was granted by the trial court. Earlier, however, he admitted that they had
engaged the services of his legal office for a fee of P20,000, in
addition to P2,500 per appearance in court. Also, in the action to quiet title, he even
alleged that they were willing to post a bond to answer for damages, in the
event that the court ruled in favor of the defendants. These facts contravene his claim that his
clients could not afford to pay the appropriate court fees.
In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the
duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law.
This obligation, however, must never be at the expense of truth and justice,[18]
as explained in Choa v. Chiongson:[19]
“While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his
client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance
and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of his client’s case with the end in view of
promoting respect for the law and legal processes, and counsel or maintain such
actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only
as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. He must always remind himself of the oath he
took upon admission to the Bar that he ‘will not wittingly or willingly promote
or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the
same’; and that he ‘will conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of
[his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to [his] clients.’ Needless to state, the lawyer’s fidelity to his client must
not be pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of justice, and
it must be done within the bounds of reason and common sense. A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and
advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action
propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.”[20]
Moreover, we agree with the finding of IBP Commissioner
Espina that the silence or failure of respondent to challenge the
allegation that he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice
of law may be deemed an admission of the truth of the accusation. We note that complainants successfully
substantiated their claim that respondent, who held himself out as a law partner
of the “KDC Legal Services, Law Offices and Associates,” was rendering legal
services together with persons not licensed to practice law. His silence on this accusation is deemed an
admission, especially because he had every chance to deny it.[21]
Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide thus:
“Canon
9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
‘Rule
9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of
any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good
standing.’”
The significance of this professional norm was emphasized in Cambaliza
v. Cristal-Tenorio,[22]
which we quote:
“The
lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of
law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character. The permissive right
conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to
withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional
conduct. The purpose is to protect the
public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty
of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control
of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer
to see that this purpose is attained. Thus,
the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional
services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized
practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his
part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized
practice of law.”[23]
Respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards
expected of him as a vanguard of law and justice. In line with jurisprudence, he is held liable
for gross misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law. [24]
WHEREFORE, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is
hereby found guilty of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED for two years
from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be entered
in the record of respondent as attorney and served on the IBP, as well as on
the court administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO
S. PUNO |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING |
|
||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate
Justice |
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ |
||||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate
Justice |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
RENATO
C. CORONA |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES |
|
|||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate
Justice |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA |
|
|||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
DANTE O. TINGA |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO |
|
|||||||
|
Associate
Justice |
Associate Justice
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. |
|
|||||||
|
Associate
Justice |
Associate Justice
|
|
|||||||
[1] Dated
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Specifically,
the following Rules were violated:
“Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
“Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the
rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
“Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of judgment or misuse court processes.
“Rule 9.02 – A lawyer shall not divide or
stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with a person not licensed to
practice law.”
[8]
[9] Dated
[10] The
Supreme Court noted the Resolution of the board of governors of the IBP on
[11] Ting-Dumali
v. Torres, 427 SCRA 108,
[12] Ziga
v. Arejola, 443 SCRA 435, November 23, 2004; Berbano v. Barcelona, 410
SCRA 258, September 3, 2003; Radjaie v. Alovera, supra; Busiños
v. Ricafort, 347 Phil. 687, December 22, 1997.
[13] Canon
10.01.
[14] Canon
10.03.
[15] Manila
Pilots Association v. Philippine Ports Authority, 357 Phil. 703, October 1,
1998; Sebastian v. Calis, 372 Phil. 673, September 9, 1999; Bayas
v. Sandiganbayan, 391 SCRA 415, November 12, 2002.
[16] Re:
Administrative Case No. 44 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Tagbilaran
City, Against Atty. Samuel C. Occeña, 383 SCRA 636, July 3, 2002.
[17] Order
dated
[18] Foronda
v. Guerrero, 436 SCRA 9,
[19] 329
Phil. 270,
[20]
[21] Tan
v. Dela Cruz, Jr., 439 SCRA 555,
[22] 434
SCRA 288,
[23]
[24] Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, 350 Phil. 889, March 12, 1998; Villaflor v. Sarita,
367 Phil. 399, June 10, 1999; Rural Bank of Silay v. Pilla, 350 SCRA 138,
January 24, 2001; Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Romero v. Reyes Jr., 461
SCRA 1, June 23, 2005.