Republic of the
Supreme Court
CONRADO
QUE,
Complainant, -
versus - ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. Respondent. |
A.C. No. 7054
PUNO, C J., CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO
MORALES,
CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: December 4, 2009 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
PER CURIAM: |
|
In a complaint for disbarment,[1] 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 petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment before the RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases) to assail and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court[2] (MeTC) and RTC[3] 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]
(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
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 CBD required the respondent to answer the complaint.
In his Answer,[5] the respondent declared that he is a member of the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) that handles pro bono cases for the underprivileged, the less fortunate, the homeless and those in the marginalized sector in Metro Manila. He agreed to take over the cases formerly handled by other KDC members. One of these cases was the unlawful detainer case handled by the late Atty. Catolico where the complainant and his siblings were the plaintiffs and the respondent’s present clients were the defendants.
With respect to paragraph 1 of the disbarment complaint, the respondent professed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions complained of; he filed these petitions to protect the interests of his clients in their property. The respondent asserted that these petitions were all based on valid grounds – the lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC and the RTC over the underlying unlawful detainer case, the extrinsic fraud committed by the late Atty. Catolico, and the extrinsic fraud committed by the complainant and his family against his clients; he discovered that the allegedly detained property did not really belong to the complainant and his family but is a forest land. The respondent also asserted that his resort to a petition for annulment of judgment and a petition for declaratory relief to contest the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC were all parts of his legal strategy to protect the interests of his clients.
On the allegations of falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment (covered by paragraph 3 of the disbarment complaint), the respondent maintained that his allegations were based on his observations and the notes he had taken during the proceedings on what the presiding judge dictated in open court.
The respondent denied that he had made
any unauthorized appearance in court (with respect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
disbarment complaint). He claimed that the 52 litigants in Civil Case No.
Q-03-48762 were impleaded by inadvertence; he immediately rectified his error by
dropping them from the case. On the petition
for annulment of judgment, the respondent claimed that a majority (31 out of
49) of the litigants who signed the certification constituted sufficient
compliance with the rules on forum-shopping. The respondent likewise denied having
represented the Republic of the
The respondent submitted that he did not commit any illegal, unlawful, unjust, wrongful or immoral acts towards the complainant and his siblings. He stressed that he acted in good faith in his dealings with them and his conduct was consistent with his sworn duty as a lawyer to uphold justice and the law and to defend the interests of his clients. The respondent additionally claimed that the disbarment case was filed because the complainant’s counsel, Atty. Cesar P. Uy (Atty. Uy), had an axe to grind against him.
Lastly, the respondent posited in his pleadings[7] before the IBP that the present complaint violated the rule on forum shopping considering that the subject cases were also the ones on which a complaint was filed against him in CBD Case No. 03-1099 filed by Atty. Uy before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline. The respondent also posited that the present complaint was filed to harass, ridicule and defame his good name and reputation and, indirectly, to harass his clients who are marginalized members of the KDC.
The
Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
Except for the last charge of unauthorized appearance on behalf of 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762, Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan[8] (Investigating Commissioner Cunanan) found all the charges against the respondent meritorious. In his Report and Recommendation, he stated:
While
an attorney admittedly has the solemn duty to defend and protect the cause and
rights of his client with all the fervor and energy within his command, yet, it
is equally true that it is the primary duty of the lawyer to defend the
dignity, authority and majesty of the law and the courts which enforce it. A
lawyer is not at liberty to maintain and defend the cause of his clients thru
means, inconsistent with truth and honor. He may not and must not encourage
multiplicity of suits or brazenly engage in forum-shopping.[9]
On the first charge on abuse of court processes, Investigating Commissioner Cunanan noted the unnecessary use by the respondent of legal remedies to forestall the execution of the final decisions of the MTC and the RTC in the unlawful detainer case against his clients.[10]
On the second charge, the Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act of the respondent in filing two petitions for annulment of title, a petition for annulment of judgment and later on a petition for declaratory relief were all done to prevent the execution of the final judgment in the unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited forum-shopping.[11]
On the third and fourth charges, Investigating Commissioner Cunanan found ample evidence showing that the respondent was dishonest in dealing with the court as shown in his petition for annulment of judgment; he resorted to falsities and attributed acts to Atty. Catolico and to the presiding judge, all of which were untrue. [12]
On the fifth and sixth charges, the
Investigating Commissioner disregarded the respondent’s explanation that he had
no intention to represent without authority 15 of the litigants (three of whom
were already deceased) in the petition for annulment of judgment (Civil Case
No. Q-01-45556). To the Investigating Commissioner, the respondent merely
glossed over the representation issue by claiming that the authority given by a
majority of the litigants complied with the certification of non-forum shopping
requirement. The Investigating Commissioner likewise brushed aside the respondent’s
argument regarding his misrepresentation in the second complaint for annulment
of title since he knew very well that only the Solicitor General can institute an
action for reversion on behalf of the Republic of the
The Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, through its Resolution No. XVII-2005-164 on CBD Case No. 03-1100, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Cunanan and recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.[13] On reconsideration, the Board of Governors reduced the respondent’s suspension from the practice of law to one (1) year.[14]
The Issue
The case poses to us the core issues of whether the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
The
Court’s Ruling
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.
We take judicial notice that this disbarment complaint is not the only one so far filed involving the respondent; another complaint invoking similar grounds has previously been filed. In Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.,[15] we suspended the respondent from the practice of law 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 initially imposed a suspension of two (2) years, but in an act of leniency subsequently reduced the suspension to six (6) months.[16]
Abuse of court procedures and processes
The following undisputed facts fully support the conclusion that the respondent is guilty of serious misconduct for abusing court procedures and processes to shield his clients from the execution of the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC in the unlawful detainer case against these clients:
First, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53892) with prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to question the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC for lack of jurisdiction. In dismissing the respondent’s petition, the CA held:
Even
for the sake of argument considering that the petition case be the proper
remedy, still it must be rejected for failure of petitioners to satisfactorily
demonstrate lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City over the ejectment case.[17]
Second, notwithstanding the CA’s dismissal of the petition for certiorari, the respondent again
questioned the MeTC’s and the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the unlawful
detainer case in a petition for annulment of judgment (docketed as Civil Case
No. Q-01-45556) before the RTC with an
ancillary prayer for the grant of a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction. The RTC dismissed this petition on the basis of the motion to dismiss
filed.[18]
Third, the respondent successively filed two petitions (docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-99-38780 and Civil
Case No. Q-02-46885) for annulment of the complainant’s title to the property involved
in the unlawful detainer case. The records show that these petitions were both
dismissed “for lack of legal personality on the part of the plaintiffs”
to file the petition.[19]
Fourth, after the
dismissals of the petition for annulment of judgment and the petitions for
annulment of title, the respondent this time filed a petition for declaratory
relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
complainant and his siblings from exercising their rights over the same property
subject of the unlawful detainer case. The respondent based the petition on the
alleged nullity of the complainant’s title because the property is a part of
forest land.
Fifth, the persistent
applications by the respondent for injunctive relief in the four petitions he
had filed in several courts – the petition for certiorari, the petition for annulment of judgment, the second
petition for annulment of complainant’s title and the petition for declaratory
relief – reveal the respondent’s persistence in preventing and avoiding the
execution of the final decisions of the MeTC and RTC against his clients in the
unlawful detainer case.
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.[20]
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,[21]
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;[22]
and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[23]
While the filing of a
petition for certiorari to question the lower courts’ jurisdiction may be a procedurally
legitimate (but substantively erroneous) move, the respondent’s subsequent
petitions involving the same property and the same parties not only demonstrate
his attempts to secure favorable ruling
using different fora, but his obvious objective as well of preventing the
execution of the MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case against
his clients. This intent is most obvious with respect to the petitions for
annulment of judgment and declaratory relief, both geared towards preventing
the execution of the unlawful detainer decision, long after this decision had
become final.
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.
First,
in the petition for annulment of judgment filed before the RTC, Branch 101,
In here, counsel for the petitioners (defendants therein),
deliberately neglected to file the proper remedy then available after receipt
of the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration … thus corruptly sold out the interest of the petitioners (defendants
therein) by keeping them away to the Court and in complete ignorance of the
suit by a false pretense of compromise
and fraudulent acts of alleging representing them when in truth and in fact,
have connived with the attorney of the
prevailing party at his defeat to the prejudice of the petitioner (defendants
therein) …[24]
Yet, in paragraph 35 of the same petition, the respondent alleged that no second motion for reconsideration or for new trial, or no other petition with the CA had been filed, as he believed “that the decisions rendered both by the MeTC and the RTC are null and void.”[25] These conflicting claims, no doubt, involve a fabrication made for the purpose of supporting the petition for annulment. Worse, it involved a direct and unsubstantiated attack on the reputation of a law office colleague, another violation we shall separately discuss below.
Second,
the respondent employed another obvious subterfuge when he filed his second
petition for annulment of title, which was an unsuccessful attempt to
circumvent the rule that only the Solicitor General may commence reversion
proceedings of public lands[26] on
behalf of the Republic of the
Third, the respondent also committed falsehood
in his motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his petition for
annulment of judgment where he misrepresented to the court and his clients what
actually transpired in the hearing of
Likewise, the proceedings on said date of hearing (June
28, 2002) show, that after both counsel have argued on the aforesaid pending
incident, the Honorable Presiding Judge, in open court, and in the presence
and within the hearing distance of all the plaintiffs and their counsel as well
as the counsel of the defendants resolved: TO DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AND
DIRECTED DEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE
REMAINING PERIOD.[27][Underscoring
and emphasis theirs]
The records, however,
disclose that the scheduled hearing for
Browsing over the records of this case specifically
the transcripts of stenographic notes as transcribed by the Stenographer, the
same will indicate that the allegations in the Motion for Reconsideration are
not true.
… how can this Court make a ruling on the matter even
without stating the factual and legal bases as required/mandated by the Rules.
Moreover, there are no indications or iota of irregularity in the preparation
by Stenographer of the transcripts, and by the Court interpreter of the Minutes
of the open Court session.[Underscoring theirs]
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. [30]
For these acts, we find the respondent liable under
Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 the Code of Professional Responsibility for violating the
lawyer’s duty to observe candor and fairness in his dealings with the
court. 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 mislead by an artifice.
Likewise, the respondent violated
his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer “never to mislead the judge
or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”[31] The respondent failed to remember that his
duty as an officer of the court makes him an indispensable participant in the
administration of justice,[32] and
that he is expected to act candidly, fairly and truthfully in his work.[33]
His duty as a lawyer obligates him not to conceal the truth from the court, or to
mislead the court in any manner, no matter how demanding his duties to his
clients may be.[34] In case of conflict, his duties to his client
yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court.[35]
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.[36] He should not prosecute
patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless
actions.[37] 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 (as quoted above) 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.
We find it significant that
the respondent failed to demonstrate how he came upon his accusation against
Atty. Catolico. The respondent, by his own admission, only participated in the
cases previously assigned to Atty. Catolico after the latter died. At the same
time, the respondent’s petition for annulment of judgment also represented that
no second motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed to contest the MeTC
and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case for the reason that the respondent
believed the said decisions were null
and void ab initio.
Under these circumstances,
we believe that the respondent has been less than fair in his professional
relationship with Atty. Catolico and is thus 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.”
He was unfair because he imputed
wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico without showing any factual basis therefor; he
effectively maligned Atty. Catolico, who is now dead and unable to defend
himself.
Unauthorized appearances
We support Investigating Commissioner Cunanan’s finding
that the respondent twice represented parties without proper authorization: first,
in the petition for annulment of judgment; and second, in the second petition
for annulment of title.[38]
In the first instance, the
records show that the respondent filed the petition for annulment of judgment on
behalf of 49 individuals, 31 of whom gave their consent while the other 15
individuals did not. We cannot agree
with the respondent’s off-hand explanation that he truly believed that a
majority of the litigants who signed the certification of non-forum shopping in
the petition already gave him the necessary authority to sign for the others. We
find it highly improbable that this kind of lapse could have been committed by
a seasoned lawyer like the respondent, who has been engaged in the practice of
law for more than 30 years and who received rigid
and strict training as he so proudly
declares, from the University of the Philippines College of Law and in the
two law firms with which he was previously associated.[39] As
Investigating Commissioner Cunanan found, the respondent’s explanation of
compliance with the rule on the certification of non-forum shopping glossed over
the real charge of appearing in court without the proper authorization of the parties
he allegedly represented.
In
the second instance, which occurred in the second complaint for annulment of
title, the respondent knew that only the Solicitor General can legally
represent the Republic of the
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.[40] The willful unauthorized appearance by a lawyer for a party in a given case constitutes contumacious conduct and also warrants disciplinary measures against the erring lawyer for professional misconduct.[41]
The Respondent’s Defenses
We find no merit in the
respondent’s defenses.
“Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of another. Accordingly, in University of the East v. Jader we said that "[g]ood faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious."[42] Bad faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for an ulterior purpose.[43] As both concepts are states of mind, they may be deduced from the attendant circumstances and, more particularly, from the acts and statements of the person whose state of mind is the subject of inquiry.
In this case, we find that the respondent acted in bad faith in defending the interests of his clients. We draw this conclusion from the misrepresentations and the dubious recourses he made, all obviously geared towards forestalling the execution of the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. That he took advantage of his legal knowledge and experience and misread the Rules immeasurably strengthen the presence of bad faith.
We find neither sincerity
nor honest belief on the part of the respondent in pleading the soundness and
merit of the cases that he filed in court to prevent the execution of the MeTC
and RTC decisions, considering his own
conduct of presenting conflicting theories in his petitions. The succession of cases he filed shows a
desperation that negates the sincere and honest belief he claims; these are
simply scattershot means to achieve his objective of avoiding the execution of
the unlawful detainer judgment against his clients.
On
the respondent’s allegations regarding his discretion to determine legal
strategy, it is not amiss to note that this was the same defense he raised in
the first disbarment case.[44]
As we explained in Plus Builders, the exercise of a lawyer’s discretion in acting for
his client can never be at the expense of truth
and justice. In the words of this cited
case:
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.[45]
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. We reject this
argument, considering that it was not Atty. Uy who filed the present disbarment
case against him; Atty. Uy is only the counsel in this case. In fact, Atty. Uy has filed his own separate
disbarment case against the respondent.
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. As we also explained in the case In re: Almacen:
. . .disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui
generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not - and
does not involve - a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an
investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being
intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
x x x
It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio.
Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be
allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of-the Court with the end in view of preserving the
purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of
justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have
proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture,
there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.[46]
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.
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. We cannot agree, however, that only a penalty of
one-year suspension from the practice of law should be imposed. Neither should we limit ourselves to the originally
recommended penalty of suspension for two (2) years.
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.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, we hereby AFFIRM Resolution No. XVII-2005-164 dated
SO
ORDERED.
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate
Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice Associate
Justice |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,
JR.
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-18.
[2] Civil Case No. 38-20262.
[3] Appealed Case No. 99-38199.
[4] See rollo, p.14, on the observation of the
presiding judge which denied the lack of truthfulness of the above assertions
of the respondent.
[5]
[6]
[7] Supplemental Position Paper; id. at 131-134.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Resolution No.
XVII-2008-657 dated
[15] A.C. No. 7056 dated
[16] A.C. No. 7056 dated
[17] Rollo, p. 6.
[18]
[19]
[20] See: Agpalo, Comments on the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct, p. 104 (2004 edition).
[21]
Rule
12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions.
Rule
12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
judgment or misuse court processes.
[22] Supra note 20 at 104.
[23] Pena
v. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298,
[24] Petition for Annulment of Judgment, p. 25; rollo, p. 11.
[25] Ibid.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 20 (d).
[32] Agpalo, supra note 20 at 99.
[33]
[34]
[35] Ibid.
[36]
[37] Ibid.
[38] Rollo, pp. 155-156.
[39]
[40] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 21.
[41]
[42] Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Estanislao Militar and Deogracias Militar, G.R. Nos. 164801 & 165165, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 308, 318; citing University of the East v. Jader, 382 Phil. 697, 705 (2000).
[43]
[44] Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., supra note 15.
[45] Ibid., citing Choa v. Chiongson, 329 Phil 270, 275-276 (1996).
[46]
G.R. No. L-27654,