Que v. Atty.

Revilla

The Facts

In a complaint for disbarment, Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.
(respondent) before the IBP CBD of committing the following violations of the provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

(1) abuse of court remedies and processes by filing several petitions before the different courts to assail and
overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer case
rendered against the respondents clients.
(2) commission of forum-shopping to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the
MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case;
(3) 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.
(4) 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 respondents clients.
(5) deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court
(6) willful and fraudulent appearance as counsel for the Republic without being authorized to do so.
(7) representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever
given to him

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 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.

The Board of Governors 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. On reconsideration, the Board of Governors reduced the respondents suspension from the
practice of law to one (1) year.

The Issue

Whether the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional
misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.

The Courts 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.

Abuse of court procedures and processes

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 complainants title and the petition for declaratory relief reveal the respondents persistence in preventing
and avoiding the execution of the final decisions of the MeTC and RTC against his clients in the unlawful
detainer case.

The respondents 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.

While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts jurisdiction may be a procedurally
legitimate (but substantively erroneous) move, the respondents 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.

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, Quezon City, the
respondent cited extrinsic fraud as one of the grounds for the annulment sought. He alleged that the 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) and have connived with the attorney of the prevailing party at his
defeat to the prejudice of the petitioner (defendants therein) Yet, in 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. These
conflicting claims, no doubt, involve a fabrication made for the purpose of supporting the petition for
annulment.

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 on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.

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 June 28, 2002. The records disclose that the scheduled hearing for June 28,
2002 was actually for the respondents application for temporary restraining order and was not a hearing on
the adverse party’s motion to dismiss.

For these acts, we find the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 the Code of Professional
Responsibility for violating the lawyers 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. The respondent failed to remember
that his duty as an officer of the court makes him an indispensable participant in the administration of
justice, and that he is expected to act candidly, fairly and truthfully in his work. 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. In case of conflict, his duties to his client yield to his duty to
deal candidly with the court.

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
xxx

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.

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 respondents 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 Cunanans 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.

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 respondents 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. As Investigating Commissioner Cunanan found, the respondents 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 Philippines in actions for reversion
of land. Nevertheless, he filed an amended petition where he impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as
plaintiff without its authority and consent, as a surreptitious way of forcing the Republic to litigate.

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 latters representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave
of court. 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.

The Respondents Defenses

We find no merit in the respondents defenses.

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.

On the respondents 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. As we explained in Plus Builders, the
exercise of a lawyers discretion in acting for his client can never be at the expense of truth and justice.

We cannot give credence to the respondents 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.

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 respondents 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 respondents 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 respondents 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

December 17, 2005 and Resolution No. XVII-2008-657 dated December 11, 2008 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 Lawyers 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.