Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and EDGARDO C. GARCIA, Complainants, -versus- ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent. |
A.C. No. 7056 Present: PUNO, C
J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated:
February 11, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.
Before us is a motion for
reconsideration of our Decision dated September 13, 2006, finding respondent
guilty of gross misconduct for 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.
To recall, the antecedents of the
case are as follows:
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law – holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm.
The dispositive portion of the
decision thus reads:
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.[1]
Respondent duly filed a motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary period, appealing to the Court to take
a second look at his case and praying that the penalty of suspension of two
years be reduced to mere reprimand or admonition for the sake of his family and
the poor clients he was defending.[2]
Respondent maintains that he did not
commit the acts complained of. The
courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the
DARAB Decision dated November 19, 1999, but were based on his serious study,
research and experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years and on
the facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action he took
were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests
of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al.[3] He stresses that he was not the original
lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client
relationship with the former lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel
did not explain/argue their position
very well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As the
new counsel, respondent candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in
the course of his interview. They maintained that they had been in open, adverse, continuous and notorious
possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet title was
resorted to in order to determine the rights of his clients respecting the
subject property. He avers that he merely
exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which his clients were entitled
under the law, considering that his clients were subjected to harassment and
threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the complainant.[4] He posits
that he was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a good
father would be protective of his own family,[5] and
that his services to Leopoldo de Guzman,
et. al were almost pro bono.[6]
Anent the issue that he permitted his
name to be used for unauthorized practice of law, he humbly submits that there was
actually no sufficient evidence to prove the same or did he fail to dispute
this, contrary to the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He was counsel of Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. only and not of the cooperative
Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC). He was just holding his office in this
cooperative, together with Attys. Dominador Ferrer, Efren Ambrocio, the late
Alfredo Caloico and Marciano Villavert. He signed the retainer agreement with
Atty. Dominador to formalize their lawyer-client relationship, and the
complainants were fully aware of such arrangement.[7]
Finally, he submits that if he is
indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action he took in behalf
of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration,
pardon and forgiveness. He reiterates
that he does not deserve the penalty of two years’ suspension, considering that the complaint fails to show
him wanting in character, honesty, and
probity; in fact, he has been a member of the bar for more than 20 years, served
as former president of the IBP Marinduque Chapter, a legal aide lawyer of IBP Quezon City handling
detention prisoners and pro bono
cases, and is also a member of the Couples for Christ, and has had strict
training in the law school he graduated from and the law offices he worked
with.[8] He is the sole breadwinner in the family with
a wife who is jobless, four (4) children
who are in school, a mother who is bedridden and a sick sister to support. The family’s only source of income is
respondent’s private practice of law, a work he has been engaged in for more
than twenty-five (25) years up to the present.[9]
On August 15, 2008, the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from respondent, requesting that he be
issued a clearance for the renewal of his notarial commission. Respondent
stated therein that he was aware of the pendency of the administrative cases[10]
against him, but pointed out that said cases had not yet been resolved with
finality. Respondent sought
consideration and compassion for the issuance of the clearance -- considering
present economic/financial difficulties -- and reiterating the fact that he was
the sole breadwinner in the family.
It is the rule that when a lawyer
accepts a case, he is expected to give his full attention, diligence, skill and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it
for a fee or for free.[11] A
lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause not only requires but also entitles him
to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him
or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to
succeed.[12] In this case, respondent may not be wanting
in this regard. On the contrary, it is
apparent that the respondent’s acts complained of were committed out of his
over-zealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients
who were poor and uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication and
conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer in
this case is rather commendable, but respondent should not forget his first and
foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. We stress what we have stated in our decision
that, 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, is not to be
performed at the expense of truth and justice.[13] This is the criterion that must be borne in
mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case.[14] Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by
impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.[15]
Certainly, violations of these canons
cannot be countenanced, as respondent must have realized with the sanction he
received from this Court. However, the
Court also knows how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from
imposing the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such
as the respondent’s length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions
and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, and respondent’s advanced age, among other things, which have varying
significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty. Thus, after a careful consideration of herein
respondent’s motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, we
are persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards him.[16]
We find the suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in
this case
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the letter-request dated August 15, 2008 is NOTED. Respondent’s Motion for
Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The Decision dated September 13, 2006 is
hereby MODIFIED in that respondent
is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this Resolution. Respondent is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of said
Resolution within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
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.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
|||
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
ARTURO
D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
[1] Decision, p. 17.
[2] Motion for Reconsideration, p. 13.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] A.C. Nos. 5473, 6586, 7054.
[11]
[12] Miraflor v. Hagad, A.C. No. 2468, May 12, 1995, 244 SCRA 106.
[13] Decision, p. 14; Plus Builders, Inc. v. Garcia, A.C. No.
7056, September 13, 2006, 501 SCRA 615, 625.
[14] Ali v. Bubong, A.C. No. 4018, March 8, 2005, 453 SCRA 220.
[15] Ramos v. Pallugna, A.C. No. 5908,
October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA 220.
[16] Rayos v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 477.