ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

Tweet

chanrobles.com

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > August 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 210554, August 05,
2015 - DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO
YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, Petitioners, v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG,
ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW
UNDER THE FIRM NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL & MAGAT, AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

BRANCH 211 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents.:

G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU,
ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM,
Petitioners, v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY.
DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL &
MAGAT, AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 211 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents.

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015
DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA
WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, Petitioners, v. ATTY.
WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN
REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL &
MAGAT, AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 211 OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer who appears under a firm name
that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits indirect contempt of court.
Through this Petition,1 petitioners ask that law firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, and Judge Ofelia L.
Calo (Judge Calo), be cited in contempt of court under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.2 Anastacio Revilla,
Jr. (Revilla) was disbarred on December 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of this court in A.C. No. 7054
entitled Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.3
David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. Yu, Winnie L. Yu, Vivian L. Yu, Rosa Gan, Lilian Chua Woo Yukimteng, Santos
Yu, Marcelo Yu, and Sin Chiao Yu Lim are the majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation.4
In Majority Stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation v. Lim, et al.,5 this court ordered the liquidation
of Ruby Industrial Corporation and transferred the case to the appropriate Regional Trial Court branch to
supervise the liquidation.6
The liquidation was raffled to Branch 211 of the Regional Trial Court in Mandaluyong City,7 presided by
Judge Calo.8

ChanRobles Intellectual Property

Division

Walter T. Young (Atty. Young), Jovito Gambol (Atty. Gambol), and Dan Reynald Magat (Atty. Magat) are
lawyers practicing under the firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat.9 They entered their appearance in the
liquidation proceedings as counsels for the liquidator.10
An Opposition11 was filed against the appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat on the ground that
Revilla was already disbarred in 2009.12
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply13 to the Opposition stating that the firm opted to retain

Revilla's name in the firm name even after he had been disbarred, with the retention serving as an act
of charity.14
Judge Calo overruled the opposition to the appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and stated that
Atty. Young could still appear for the liquidator as long as his appearance was under the Young Law Firm
and not under Young Revilla Gambol & Magat.15 Young Law Firm does not exist.
Thus, petitioners David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. Yu, Winnie L. Yu, Vivian L. Yu, Rosa Gan, Lilian Chua Woo
Yukimteng, Santos Yu, Marcelo Yu, and Sin Chiao Yu Lim filed this Petition under Rule 71 to cite
respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Atty. Jovito Gambol, Atty. Dan Reynald R.
Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo in contempt.
This court required respondents to comment on the Petition.16 Respondent law firm Young Revilla
Gambol & Magat filed its Comment17 on April 14, 2014, while respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate
Comment.18
On April 16, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Reply.19 This was granted in
the Resolution20 dated June 18, 2014. In the same Resolution, this court denied petitioners' Motion to
Consider Case Submitted without Comment from [Judge Calo]21 and ordered the parties to await Judge
Calo's comment.22
Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a Manifestation,23 informing this court that they have yet to
receive a copy of Judge Calo's Comment.24 No Comment was filed by Judge Calo.
Petitioners cite San Luis v. Pineda25 and United States v. Ney, et al.26 to support their argument that
the use of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is tantamount to contempt of court.27
Private Respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat counter that they maintained Revilla's name in the firm
name for sentimental reasons.28
Atty. Young and Atty. Magat explained that they did not intend to deceive the public29 and that in any
case, the retention of Revilla's name "does not give added value to the [law firm] nor does it enhance
the standing of the member lawyers thereof."30
They further argue that:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The non-deletion of [Anastacio E. Revilla's] name in the Young Law Firm's name is no
more misleading than including the names of dead or retired partners in a law firm's
name. It is more for sentimental reasons. It is a fraternal expression to a former brother
in the profession that the Private Respondents fully understand, his [referring to Revilla]
principled albeit quixotic advocacy.31
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Private respondents point out that the Balgos Law Firm is derailing the liquidation of Ruby Industrial
Corporation by filing this Petition for contempt because the Balgos Law Firm resents that its nominee
was not elected as liquidator.32 Private respondents add that petitioners have continuously blocked Ruby
Industrial Corporation's unsecured creditors from obtaining relief, as shown by the number of times that
Ruby Industrial Corporation's cases have reached this court.33
Private respondents also raise the issue of forum shopping in their Comment because petitioners
allegedly filed a disbarment Complaint against them before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated
Bar of the Philippines. One of the grounds for disbarment cited by petitioners was the use of Revilla's
name in their firm name.34

August-2015 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 197709, August 03, 2015 - JOSE YULO
AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
PERLA
CABAYLO
DAVIS
AND
SCOTT
DAVIS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 200969, August 03, 2015 - CONSOLACION D.
ROMERO AND ROSARIO S.D. DOMINGO, Petitioners, v.
ENGRACIA D. SINGSON, Respondent.
G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015 - JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 8708 (CBD Case No. 08-2192), August 12,
2015 - SPOUSES BYRON AND MARIA LUISA SAUNDERS,
Complainants, v. ATTY. LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANOCALDE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 177803, August 03, 2015 - SPOUSES
EMILIANO L. JALBAY, SR. AND MAMERTA C. JALBAY,
Petitioners,
v.
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 201365, August 03, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUELA
FLORES Y SALAZAR @ WELLA Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 198908, August 03, 2015 - VIRGINIA
OCAMPO,
Petitioner,
v.
DEOGRACIO
OCAMPO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 195175, August 10, 2015 - COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TOLEDO POWER
COMPANY, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 199645 - TOLEDO
POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Private respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment,35 arguing that from the time Revilla was
disbarred, he no longer practiced law.36
Private respondent Atty. Gambol stated that he passed the 1990 Bar Examination but took his oath in
July 2006.37 He is a junior member of the Young Revilla Magat & Gambol law firm and "has no power
and/or authority [to decide] who should be removed from the firm's name[.]"38
Private respondent Atty. Gambol argues that in all the cases he handled after Re villa's disbarment, he
omitted Re villa's name from the firm name in the pleadings that he signed. Such deletion was through
his own initiative.39
Petitioners filed their Reply,40 with petitioners addressing respondents' allegations that they remained
silent on the disbarment case they had filed by citing Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court,41
which provides that:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

....
Section 18. Confidentiality. Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and
confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases.
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Petitioners argue that liability for contempt is separate from disciplinary action; hence, no forum
shopping was committed.42
Petitioners did not address private respondents' allegations regarding the delay in the liquidation of Ruby
Industrial Corporation.
The issues in this case are:
First, whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R.
Magat are in contempt of court when they continued to use respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.'s name
in their firm name even after his disbarment;
cralawlawlibrary

Second, whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald
R. Magat are in contempt of court for deliberately allowing a disbarred lawyer to engage in the practice
of law;
cralawlawlibrary

G.R. No. 213233, August 05, 2015 - BLISS

DEVELOPMENT
CORP./HOME
GUARANTY
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
MONTANO
DIAZ,
DOMINGO
TAPAY,
AND
EDGAR
H.
ARREZA,

Third, whether private respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is in contempt of court for continuing to
practice law even after disbarment;
cralawlawlibrary

Respondents.
G.R. No. 197953, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND
DIVISION), QUINTIN SALUDAGA Y BORDEOS, ARTHUS
ADRIATICO Y ERUDA AND ROMEO DE LUNA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 187524, August 05, 2015 - SPOUSES MARIA
BUTIONG AND FRANCISCO VILLAFRIA, SUBSTITUTED
BY DR. RUEL B. VILLAFRIA, Petitioners, v. MA. GRACIA
RIOZA PLAZO AND MA. FE RIOZA ALARAS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 209447, August 11, 2015 - PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION
ON
GOOD
GOVERNMENT
(PCGG),
Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS, PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI
CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB),
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 210901 - PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION
ON
GOOD
GOVERNMENT
(PCGG),
Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS, PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI
CITY
AND
UNITED
COCONUT
PLANTERS
LIFE
ASSURANCE CORPORATION (COCOLIFE), Respondents.
G.R. No. 188739, August 05, 2015 - BENJAMIN E.
RAVAGO, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, SUBSTITUTED BY BRIGHT VENTURES
REALTY, INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015 - OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EFREN BASAL
CAYAS, Accused-Appellant.
A.M. No. 11238-Ret., August 18, 2015 - IN RE:
EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY.
SAADUDDIN
A.
ALAUYA,
OFFICE
OF
THE
JURISCONSULT, ZAMBOANGA CITY
G.R. No. 167838, August 05, 2015 - JOSE V. TOLEDO,
GLENN
PADIERNOS
AND
DANILO
PADIERNOS,
Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS,
ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS
AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO RAMOS,
GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C.
MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, Respondents.
A.C. No. 10635, August 26, 2015 - NOEL S. SORREDA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-14-3253, August 19, 2015 - NICETAS
TANIEZA-CALAYOAN, Complainant, v. ELMER JERRY C.
CALAYOAN, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 2, BANGUED, ABRA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015 - PATROCINIA H.
SALABAO,
Complainant,
v.
ATTY.
ANDRES
C.
VILLARUEL, JR., Respondent.

Fourth, whether public respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is in contempt of court when she held that
respondent Atty. Walter T. Young can appear in court as long as it is under the Young Law Firm, which is
a non-existent firm; and
Lastly, whether the filing of this Petition despite the pendency of a disbarment complaint before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines constitutes forum shopping.
II
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After charge
in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon
within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a
person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions;
cralawlawlibrary

(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,

including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or
attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of
executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given
to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
cralawlawlibrary

(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
cralawlawlibrary

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade
the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without
authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;

cralawlawlibrary

(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer
by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him. (Emphasis supplied)
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

This court has defined contempt of court as:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a

disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an
interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence
or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a
body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the
authority, justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic,
embracing within its legal signification a variety of different acts.43 (Emphasis in the
original, citations omitted)
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In this case, respondents committed acts that are considered indirect contempt under Section 3 of Rule
71. In addition, respondents disregarded the Code of Professional Responsibility when they retained the
name of respondent Revilla in their firm name.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015 - SAMUEL B. ARNADO,

Complainant,
v.
ATTY.
HOMOBONO
A.
ADAZA,
Respondent.

Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that
the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.

A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015 - MARY ANN T.

FLORES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR,
JR., Respondent.

Respondents argue that the use of respondent Revilla's name is "no more misleading than including the
names of dead or retired partners in a law firm's name."44

A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015 - OFFICE OF

THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANA
MARIE ABARENTOS, RECORDS OFFICER IV, COURT OF
APPEALS, CEBU CITY, Respondent.

III

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015 - LUIS UY,

SUBSTITUTED BY LYDIA UY VELASQUEZ AND SHIRLEY
UY
MACARAIG,
Petitioner,
v.
SPOUSES
JOSE
LACSAMANA AND ROSAURA* MENDOZA, SUBSTITUTED
BY CORAZON BUENA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 - ROSVEE C.
CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015 - MARINA PORT
SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN HOME
ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202967, August 05, 2015 - ALICIA Y.
LAUREL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER SOLE HEIR AND LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE JUAN MIGUEL Y. LAUREL, Petitioner,
v. FERDINAND M. VARDELEON, Respondent.
G.R. No. 183869, August 03, 2015 - LEONARDO L.
VILLALON,
Petitioner,
v.
RENATO
E.
LIRIO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 179751, August 05, 2015 - HERMINIA L.
MENDOZA, IN HER CAPACITY AS OIC OF THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
ARMANDO AND ANGELA GARANA AND FAR EAST BANK
& TRUST CO., INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 208320, August 19, 2015 - GRACE DAVID Y
CESAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is different from using a deceased partner's
name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the use of a deceased partner's name as long as
there is an indication that the partner is deceased. This ensures that the public is not misled. On the
other hand, the retention of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may mislead the public into
believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
The use of a deceased partner's name in the firm name was the issue in the consolidated cases Petition
for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo" and In
the matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon,
Mabanta & Reyes."45 Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to continue including Atty. Alexander
Sycip's and Atty. Herminio Ozaeta's names in their firm names.46 This court denied the petitions,
explaining that there is a possibility of deception in the use of a deceased partner's name.47 Also, Article
1815 of the Civil Code48 shows that the partners in a partnership should be "living persons who can be
subjected to liability."49 Further, the use of a deceased partner's name is not a custom in the
Philippines.50 On the contrary, the local custom shows that the firm name usually identifies the senior
members or partners of a law firm.51 Justice Aquino dissented, stating that:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

I am of the opinion that the petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated
in the letterheads of the two firms (as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, former
Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the period when they served as partners
should be stated therein.
Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of the names of their
deceased founders is to retain the clients who had customarily sought the legal services of
Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the goodwill attached to the names of
those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate motivation.
The retention of their names is not illegal per se. That practice was followed before the
war by the law firm of James Ross. Notwithstanding the death of Judge Ross, the founder
of the law firm of Ross, Lawrence, Selph and Carrascoso, his name was retained in the
firm name with an indication of the year when he died. No one complained that the
retention of the name of Judge Ross in the firm name was illegal or unethical.52
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. 174542, August 03, 2015 - KAREN GO,

Petitioner, v. LAMBERTO ECHAVEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 196875, August 19, 2015 - TEDDY
MARAVILLA, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH RIOS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205113, August 26, 2015 - HONORLITA
ASCANO-CUPINO AND FLAVIANA ASCANO-COLOCADO,
Petitioners, v. PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO
AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,* Appellants.
G.R. No. 198643, August 19, 2015 - MARSMAN &
COMPANY AND QUIRINO R. ILEDAN, Petitioners, v.
ARTEMIO M. LIGO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 - NG MENG TAM,
Petitioner,
v.
CHINA
BANKING
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
A.M. No. P-11-2982 (Formerly O.C.A. IPI No. 082913-P), August 17, 2015 - FORMER JUDGE FERNANDO
VIL PAMINTUAN, Complainant, v. SALVADOR G.
COMUYOG, JR., CLERK III, Respondent.
G.R. No. 187882, August 24, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES HIPPOCRATES
AND MELANIE PIMENTEL, Respondents.
G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 - ACOMARIT
ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG,
Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 170706, August 26, 2015 - PRUDENCIO
CARANTO, Petitioner, v. BERGESEN D.Y. PHILS.
AND/OR BERGESEN D.Y. A.S.A., Respondents.
G.R. No. 194617, August 05, 2015 - LA TONDEA,
INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent.
G.R. No. 206612, August 17,
ALABANG,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
Respondent.

2015 EDWIN

The use of a deceased partner's name in a law firm's name was allowed upon the effectivity of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, with the requirement that "the firm indicates in all its communications that
said partner is deceased."53
On the other hand, this court has ruled that the use of the name of a person who is not authorized to
practice law constitutes contempt of court.
In San Luis v. Pineda, this court has held that "[n]eedless to say, [the] practice of law by one who is
disbarred constitutes contempt of court."54United States v. Ney, et al. involved J. Garcia Bosque who
was denied admission to the bar because he chose to remain a Spanish subject during the cession of the
Philippines under the Treaty of Paris.55 Bosque entered into an arrangement with Ney, a practicing
attorney, and established "Ney & Bosque."56 Bosque did not personally appear in courts but the papers
of their office were signed "Ney and Bosque-C.W. Ney, Abogado."57 The matter was referred to the then
Attorney-General, and contempt proceedings were instituted.58 At that time, Section 232 of the Code of
Civil Procedure defined contempt of court as:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of

a court, or injunction granted by a court or judge;
cralawlawlibrary

2. Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions.59
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

This court found that Atty. Ney was in contempt of court and held that:

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio,61 Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio used a letterhead indicating that
Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr. was a senior partner in the Cristal-Tenorio Law Office when, in fact, he was not a
lawyer.62 This court held that:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to
practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the

unauthorized practice of law.

TOYOTA
GAMES,

G.R. No. 203142, August 26, 2015 - THE PHILIPPINE

PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), Petitioner, v. COALITION OF
PPA OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY
HECTOR E. MIOLE, ET AL., Respondents.
G.R. No. 182157, August 17, 2015 - ANLUD METAL
RECYCLING CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY
ALFREDO A. DY, Petitioner, v. JOAQUIN ANG,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015 - RE: IN THE MATTER
OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO
S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.
G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015 - RODOLFO
BASILONIA,
LEODEGARIO
CATALAN
AND
JOHN
BASILONIA, Petitioners, v. HON. DELANO F. VLLLARUZ,
ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ROXAS CITY, BRANCH
16, AND DIXON ROBLETE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 165146, August 12, 2015 - SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND VERNETTE G. UMALI,
Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION,
Respondent.; G.R. N0. 165209 - RAMON K. ILUSORIO
AND ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, Petitioners, v. BAGUIO
COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 203066, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO LLOBERA
Y OFIZA, Accused-Appellant.

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Under the second subdivision of [Section 232], Bosque is obviously not answerable,
inasmuch as he was not an officer of the court. On the other hand, under this subdivision,
the defendant Ney, as an admitted attorney, is liable if his conduct amounted to
misbehavior. We are of the opinion that it did. In the offense of Bosque in holding himself
out as a general practitioner Ney participated, and for the improper signature of the
pleadings he was chiefly and personally responsible.60

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.
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The term "practice of law" implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the
public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his
services. Holding one's self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that
purpose like identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a
client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.
Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law.
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.63 (Citations omitted)
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

From the time respondent Revilla was disbarred in 2009, it appears that no efforts were exerted to
remove his name from the firm name. Thus, respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat are held liable for
contempt of court.
Rule 71, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the imposable penalties for indirect
contempt:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015 - VICENTE H.

MANULAT, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015 - NATION
PETROLEUM GAS, INCORPORATED, NENA ANG, MARIO
ANG, ALISON A. SY, GUILLERMO G. SY, NELSON ANG,
LUISA ANG, RENATO C. ANG, PAULINE T. ANG, RICKY C.
ANG,1 AND MELINDA ANG, Petitioners, v. RIZAL
COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED
BY
PHILIPPINE
ASSET
GROWTH
ONE,
INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015 - JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG, HON. SAMUEL R.
MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD
DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 201405, August 24, 2015 - LIWAYWAY
ANDRES, RONNIE ANDRES, AND PABLO B. FRANCISCO,
Petitioners, v. STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT,
INCORPORATED, Respondent.
G.R. No. 153810, August 12, 2015 - WINSTON R.
GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE

SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt.If the respondent is adjudged guilty of

indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt
committed against a lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the contempt
consists in the violation of a writ of injunction, temporary restraining order or status quo
order, he may also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by such
violation of the property involved or such amount as may be alleged and proved.
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall issue for the enforcement of a
judgment imposing a fine unless the court otherwise provides. (Emphasis supplied)
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In view of Rule 71, Section 7, a fine of P30,000.00 each is imposed on respondents Atty. Young and Atty.
Magat.
IV
Respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment, explaining that he dropped respondent Re villa's
name from the firm name in the pleadings that he filed in several courts. Respondent Atty. Gambol's
explanation is supported by the allegations in the Comment filed by respondents Atty. Young and Atty.
Magat stating:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In fact, when co-Private Respondent Gambol, initially cowed perhaps, by the same
intimidation worked upon him by the Complainants' counsel in another case, asked

INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioners, v. ANGELITA

TOLENTINO, EDELITO ZOLLO EDRALINDA, KATHLYN A.
UMALI, VIVIAN ROSIELLE CERVANTES, EDITH MEDINA,
ROMELO CABANGON, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO.
167297 - MELINA I. GARCIA, CECILIA V. LAS, NIMFA
PENALOSA, ROSANA R. ZEPEDA, RACHELLE L. JACOB,
MARIBEL B. TENA, AND EDUVIGIS S. ANGELES (IN LIEU
OF ANGELITA TOLENTINO FOR THE NATIONAL
FORESTATION DEVELOPMENT OFFICE-DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.),
Petitioners, v. WINSTON GARCIA, ET AL., Respondents.
G.R. No. 192943, August 12, 2015 - UNITED
DUMANGAS
PORT
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ATTY.
OSMAR M. SEVILLA, GENERAL MANAGER, ATTY.
FERNANDO B. CLAVERINA, PORT MANAGER, PORT
MANAGEMENT OFFICER-ILOILO; AND RAUL T. SANTOS,
PORT DISTRICT MANAGER, PORT DISTRICT OFFICEVISAYAS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200114, August 24, 2015 SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. DEBBIE
Respondent.

permission to delete [Anastacio E. Revilla's] name in the Young Law Firm's name in the
pleadings that he (i.e. Private Respondent Gambol) would subsequently file, Respondent
Young allowed him to do so.64
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

This court recognizes respondent Atty. Gambol's effort to avoid misleading the public by removing
respondent Revilla's name in the pleadings he filed. Thus, the Complaint against him is dismissed.
Petitioners included Revilla as a respondent, but they did not serve copies of the Petition and subsequent
pleadings upon him. Respondent Revilla also did not receive a copy of this court's Resolution requiring
respondents to comment. Thus, this court shall refrain from ruling upon respondent Revilla's liability.
V
With regard to respondent Judge Calo, petitioners pray that she be cited in contempt for allowing
respondent Atty. Young's appearance as long as it was under the Young Law Firm. A photocopy of the
Order65 was attached to the Petition. A portion of Judge Calo's Order states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Although this court grants the appearance of Atty. Walter Young for the Liquidator, his
appearance however shall be allowed only if in the name of the Young Law Firm, managed
by the said counsel, and not under the name of the Law Firm of Young Revilla Gambol and
Magat. This is to avoid any misconception that a disbarred lawyer, Revilla, continues to
practice law.66

SOCIAL
UBAA,

G.R. No. 177168, August 03, 2015 - NAVY OFFICERS'

VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (NOVAI), Petitioner, v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 163598, August 12, 2015 - AGRARIAN
REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), AS
REPRESENTED BY ISAIAS "ACE" NICOLAS IN HIS
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, VIOLETA BATADHAY, JESUS
F. DANAO, DOMINADOR RIOSA, EVA I. FLORIDO,
VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA
MENGOLIO, FEDELINA AMENGYAO, REBECCA REBAMBA,
MELANI
CADAG,
SOFRONIA
SABORDO,
MYRNA
SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA MANALANZAN, NORA I.
REBUZANO, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, ALGERICO L.
GAEGUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ,
HELEN S. BUNI, EMELINDA FERNANDEZ, JULIETA J.
AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA,
EDUARDO M. DILAY, SIMEONA V. ROLEDA, EVELYN
SANTO ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA
ABRENICA,
BESAME
VILLACORTA,
ROSALINA
HERNANDEZ, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SOUN,
ILUMENADA RONQUILLO, REGINA LOPEZ, AMPARO
GREY,
HIPOLITO
MANDAO,
JUAN
DELA
VEGA,
PRESCILIANA
LLEMIT,
LEBERETA
IGNACIO,
FRANCISCO VALDEMOR, Petitioners, v. FIL-ESTATE
INC., PROPERTIES, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 164660 THE
DEPARTMENT
OF
AGRARIAN
REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), AGRARIAN REFORM
BENEFICIARIES,
INC.,
ET
AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
KINGSVILLE
CONSTRUCTION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORP. AND JOHNSON ONG, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
164779
AGRARIAN
REFORM
BENEFICIARIES
ASSOCIATION
(ARBA),
VIOLETA
BATADHAY,
NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, JESUS F. DANAO, EVA I.
FLORIDO, VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA,
ELSA MENGOLIO, ROBERTO ISIP, REBECCA REBAMBA,
SOFRONIA SABORDO, MYRNA SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA
MANALANZAN, NORA I. REBUZANO, ALGERICO L.
GALQUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ,
HELEN S. BUNI, JULIETA J. AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C.
ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA, EDUARDO M. DILAY,
ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA
ABRENICA,
VERONICA
DOMULOT,
LUCIA
SUN,
ILUMENADA RONQUILLO AND PRESCILIANA LLEMIT,
Petitioners, v. KINGSVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND JOHNSONONG,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 164974, August 05, 2015 - CHARLIE TE,
Petitioner, v. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION,
BRANCH 10, DAVAO CITY; U R. BAHINTING, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF THE
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SARANGGANI
DISTRICT
OFFICE;
AND
PRYCE
GASES,
INC.,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 211302, August 12, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS C. SALINAS,
AND
NORWEGIAN
CREW
MANAGEMENT
A/S,
Petitioners, v. CESAR C. PELAGIO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015 - ROMMEL C.
ARNADO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND FLORANTE CAPITAN, Respondents.

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Petitioners argue that respondent Judge Calo's Order is an indirect violation of "the proscription against
the participation of ... disbarred lawyer[s]"67 in court. Further, the Young Law Firm does not exist.68
Respondent Judge Calo was required to file a Comment on the Resolution69 dated February 24, 2014,
but she did not comply.
From petitioners' allegations, it appears that respondent Judge Calo committed an error in judgment
when she allowed respondent Atty. Young's appearance under the Young Law Firm. However, this
Petition to cite respondent Judge Calo in contempt is not the proper remedy. Maylas, Jr. v. Judge Sese70
discussed the remedies available to litigants as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

[T]he law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being
committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies
against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error in
appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or
substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition
of a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary
remedies against error or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character
(i.e., whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter
alia the special civil actions of certiorari , prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for
inhibition, a petition for change of venue, as the case may be.
Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal
actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these
judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these
judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or
proceeding, are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the
judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the
available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken
with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability
may be said to have opened, or closed.71 (Citation omitted)
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Whether petitioners availed themselves of judicial remedies was not stated in their Petition.
Nevertheless, this court cannot ignore the possible effect of respondent Judge Calo's Order. Thus, the
Complaint against respondent Judge Calo shall be re-docketed as an administrative matter. Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SECTION 11. . . . The Supreme Court en bane shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Also, Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court72 provides that the administrative
functions of this court include "disciplinary and administrative matters involving justices, judges, and
court personnel[.]"
VI
As to the allegation of forum shopping, petitioners do not deny that they filed a Complaint for
disbarment. They argue, however, that they did not mention the disbarment proceedings against
respondents in view of Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which states that disbarment
proceedings are private and confidential.73 In addition, a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a
Complaint for disbarment are different from each other.
The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the filing of this
Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping. Forum shopping has been defined
as:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,

simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the
same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues
either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.74
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. 211649, August 12, 2015 - AQA GLOBAL

CONSTRUCTION,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 211742 JE-AN SUPREME BUILDERS AND SALES CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT
BANK,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 203355, August 18, 2015 - LEO R. ROSALES,
EDGAR
SOLIS
JONATHAN
G.
RANIOLA,
LITO
FELICIANO, RAYMUNDO DIDAL, JR., NESTOR SALIN,
ARNULFO S. ABRIL, RUBEN FLORES, DANTE FERMA AND
MELCHOR SELGA, Petitioners, v. NEW A.N.J.H.
ENTERPRISES & N.H. OIL MILL CORPORATION, NOEL
AWAYAN, MA. FE AWAYAN, BYRON ILAGAN, HEIDI A.
ILAGAN AND AVELINO AWAYAN, Respondents.

The elements of forum shopping are:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions;
cralawlawlibrary

(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the
other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration.75
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

This court has explained that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, and are not akin to civil or
criminal cases.76 A disbarment proceeding "is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No.

05-2301-RTJ), August 17, 2015 - DR. CORAZON D.
PADERANGA, DULCE P. GUIBELONDO, PATRIA P. DIAZ,
CARMENCITA P. ORSENO, AND DR. AMOR P. GALON,
Complainants,
v.
HONORABLE
RUSTICO
D.
PADERANGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28,
IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.; A.M. No. RTJ07-2033 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 06-2485-RTJ) PATRIA PADERANGA DIAZ, Complainant, v. HON. RTC
JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, AS THE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28,
IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 160924, August 05, 2015 - TERELAY
INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. CECILIA TERESITA J. YULO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 213286, August 26, 2015 - MAMERTA LOPEZ
CLAUDIO, EDUARDO L. CLAUDIO, ASUNCION CLAUDIOCONTEGINO,
ANA
CLAUDIO-ISULAT,
DOLORES
CLAUDIO-MABINI,
AND
FERMIN
L.
CLAUDIO,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FEDERICO AND NORMA
SARAZA, Respondent.

undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts."77

Also, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' findings are recommendatory, and the power to sanction
erring members of the bar lies with this court.78
As discussed by this court in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan:79
The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is broader [than] the
power to punish for contempt. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and
non-lawyers, both in and out of court. Frequently, where the contemnor is a lawyer, the
contumacious conduct also constitutes professional misconduct which calls into play the
disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. Where the respondent is a lawyer, however,
the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers may come into play whether or
not the misconduct with which the respondent is charged also constitutes contempt of
court. The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of
disciplinary authority of the Court over lawyers. The disciplinary authority of the Court
over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to
the Bar. A lawyers [sic] is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as
such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and
resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert,
or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional
misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and contumacious
conduct warranting application of the contempt power.80 (Citations omitted)
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. 200295, August 19, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGAR BOLO Y
FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015 - DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND THE
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY HON.
ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY
AS
COMMISSIONER
OF
CUSTOMS,
Petitioners, v. HON. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ, JR., IN
HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
MANILA,
HON.
FELICITAS
O.
LARONCACANINDIN, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 17,
RONNIE C. SILVESTRE, EDWARD P. DELA CUESTA,
ROGEL C. GATCHALIAN, IMELDA D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S.
SANDAG, RAYMOND P. VENTURA, MA. LIZA S. TORRES,
ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, MA. LOURDES V. MANGAOANG,
FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y. ERPE, CARLOS T. SO, MARIETTA
D. ZAMORANOS, CARMELITA M. TALUSAN,1] AREFILES
H.
CARREON,2]
AND
ROMALINO
G.
VALDEZ,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 6738, August 12, 2015 - GABRIELA
CORONEL, Petitioner, v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 170671, August 19, 2015 - FILADELFA T.
LAUSA, LORETA T. TORRES, PRIMITIVO TUGOT AND
ANACLETO T. CADUHAY, Petitioners, v. MAURICIA
QUILATON, RODRIGO Q. TUGOT, PURIFICACION T.
CODILLA, TEOFRA T. SADAYA, ESTRELLITA T. GALEOS
AND ROSITA T. LOPEZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 202322, August 19, 2015 - LIGHT RAIL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ROMULO S.
MENDOZA, FRANCISCO S. MERCADO, ROBERTO M.
REYES, EDGARDO CRISTOBAL, JR., AND RODOLFO
ROMAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015 - FLOR CAASMANUEL, Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. EGANO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON
PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN
AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R.
BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A.
MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.
AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS
DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O.
PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V.
CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA,
Respondent.
A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN,
CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA,
Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING
AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU
STATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P.
SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES,
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER
II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C.
CLEOFE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON
GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are found in contempt
of court for using a disbarred lawyer's name in their firm name and are meted a fine of P30,000.00
each.
The Complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol is DISMISSED. This is without prejudice to any disciplinary
liabilities of respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
The counsels are ordered to make the necessary amendments in relation to the use of the disbarred
lawyer's name including changes in their signage, notice of appearances, stationeries, and like material
within a period of five (5) days from receipt.
The Complaint against respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is also ordered re-docketed as an administrative
matter.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to private
respondents' personal records as attorneys, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and to the Office of
the Court Administrator for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1Rollo,

pp. 3-16.

Id. at 13.

622 Phil. 1 (2009) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

4Rollo,

p. 3.

665 Phil. 600 (2011) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].

Id. at 657.

7Rollo,

p. 7.

Id. at 4.

Id.

10

Id. at 7.

11

Id. at 22-26.

12

Id. at 7 and 22.

13

Id. at 27-33

14

Id. at 8 and 28.

15

Id. at 8-9.

16

Id. at 56. The Resolution was dated February 24, 2014.

17

Id. at 57-68.

18

Id. at 70-84.

19

Id. at 202-204.

20

Id. at 223.

21

Id. at 217-220.

22

Id. at 223.

23

Id. at 229-233.

24

G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T.

LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

Id. at 229.

25

121 Phil. 419 (1965) [Per C.J. Bengzon, En Banc].

26

8 Phil. 146 (1907) [Per J. Tracey, En Banc].

G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL

PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC.,
Respondent.

27Rollo,

pp. 9-12.

28

Id. at 60.

29

Id. at 59-60.

A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST

OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS
JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR
DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS

30

Id. at 59.

31

Id. at 60.

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 123989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH,
Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA
ACOMPAADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN
JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

32

Id. at 62.

33

Id.

34

Id. at 58.

35

Id. at 70-84.

36

Id. at 72.

G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v.
LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.

37

Id. at 73.

38

Id.

G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C.
BLANCO, JR., Respondent.

39

Id. at 73-74.

40

Id. at 205-212.

G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V.

CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO,
FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.

41

Id. at 207.

42

Id.

G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA

ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR
AND CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO

GIANGAN,
SANTOS
BONTIA
(DECEASED),
AND
LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L.

BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT
PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT
ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V.
QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON
PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN
AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R.
BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A.
MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.
AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V.
CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS
DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O.
PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM,
Respondent.
A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN,
CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA,
Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING
AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU
STATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P.
SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES,
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER
II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C.
CLEOFE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON
GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

43Lorenzo

Shipping Corporation, et al. v. Distribution Management Association of the

Philippines, et al., 672 Phil. 1, 10 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
44Rollo,

p. 60.

45

180 Phil. 250 (1979) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc].

46

Id. at 253-254.

47

Id. at 261-263.

48

CIVIL CODE, art. 1815 provides:

ARTICLE 1815. Every partnership shall operate under a firm name, which may or may not
include the name of one or more of the partners.
Those who, not being members of the partnership, include their names in the firm name,
shall be subject to the liability of a partner.
49Petition

for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano,
Hernandez & Castillo," 180 Phil. 250, 257 (1979) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc].
50

Id. at 260.

51

Id.

52

J. Aquino, Dissenting Opinion in Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name
"Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo," 180 Phil. 250, 264-265 (1979) [Per J.
Melencio-Herrera, En Banc]. Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, and Antonio joined the
dissent of Associate Justice Aquino.
53

Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 3, Rule 3.02.

54San

Luis v. Pineda, 121 Phil. 419,420 (1965) [Per C.J. Bengzon, En Banc].

55United

States v. Ney, et al., 8 Phil. 146 (1907) [Per J. Tracey, En Banc], citing In re
Bosque, 1 Phil. (1902) [Per C.J. Arellano, En Banc].
56

Id. at 146-147.

57

Id. at 147.

58

Id.

59

Id. at 148.

60

G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T.

LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

Id. at 149.

61

478 Phil. 378 (2004) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division].

62

Id. at 384-385.

G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL

PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC.,
Respondent.

63

Id. at 387-389.

G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA

ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR
AND CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 123989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH,
Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA
ACOMPAADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN
JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.
A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST
OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS
JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR
DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS
G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO
GIANGAN,
SANTOS
BONTIA
(DECEASED),
AND
LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v.
LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C.
BLANCO, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V.
CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO,
FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L.
BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT
PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT
ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,*
Respondents.
G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015 - MONICO LIGTAS,
Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V.
QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 215568, August 03, 2015 - RICHARD N.
RIVERA, Petitioner, v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE,
INC. AND RIZA A. MOISES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU
KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU,
ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS
YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, Petitioners,
v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA,
JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD
R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM NAME,
YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL & MAGAT, AND JUDGE
OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 211 OF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY,
Respondents.

64Rollo,

p. 60.

65

Id. at 34-46. The Joint Order, dated December 5, 2013 and docketed as SEC CASE No.
MC12-133 and MC 12-134, was entitled In re: Involuntary Liquidation of Ruby Industrial
Corporation.
66

Id. at 43.

67

Id. at 13.

68

Id.

69

Id. at 56.

70

529 Phil. 594 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

71

Id. at 598-599.

72

A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, as amended by the Resolution dated August 3, 2010.

73Rollo,

p. 207.

74Ortigas

& Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. No. 109645, January 21, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/109645.pdf> 39 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division],
citing Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014, 716 SCRA
175, 178 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
75

Id. at 39-40, citing Goodland Company, Inc. v. Asia United Bank, et al., 684 Phil. 391,
409 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
76In

re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 600-601 [Per J.
Castro, En Banc]. See also Gonzalez v. Atty. Alcaraz, 534 Phil. 471, 482 (2006) [Per C.J.
Panganiban, First Division], Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr., 622 Phil. 1, 22-23 (2009) [Per
Curiam, En Banc], Ylaya v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452, 467468 [Per J. Brion, Second Division], and Dizon v. De Taza, A.C. No. 7676, June 10, 2014,
726 SCRA 70, 78-79 [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
77Cristobal

v. Renta, A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 247, 249 [Per J.
Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
78Bernardino

v.
Atty.
Santos,
A.C.
No.
10583,
February
18,
2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/10583.pdf> 14-15 [Per J.
Leonen, Second Division].
79

248 Phil. 542 (1988) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

80

Id. at 555-556.

Ads by Google
Ads by Google
Ads by Google

Law GR
David GR
Public Law

Court Cases
Atty at Law
Court Order

GR No
GR GR
Law & Order

David GR
Public Law
Public GR

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

G.R. No. 205705, August 05, 2015 - DOMINADOR M.

APIQUE,
Petitioner,
v.
EVANGELINE
APIQUE
FAHNENSTICH, Respondent.

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

G.R. No. 195990, August 05, 2015 - HEIRS OF RAFAEL

GOZO REPRESENTED BY CASTILLO GOZO AND RAFAEL
GOZO, JR., Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE UNION MISSION
CORPORATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH
(PUMCO),
SOUTH
PHILIPPINE
UNION
MISSION OF SDA (SPUMCO) AND SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH AT SIMPAK, LALA, LANAO DEL
NORTE REPRESENTED BY BETTY PEREZ , Respondents.

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

G.R. No. 171804, August 05, 2015 - THE REGISTER OF

DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND THE NATIONAL
TREASURER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioners, v. OSCAR ANGLO, SR., AND ANGLO
AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
OSCAR ANGLO, JR., Respondents.

G.R. No. 163504, August 05, 2015 - BERLINDA

ORIBELLO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL
FORMER TENTH DIVISION), AND REMEDIOS ORIBELLO,
Respondents.

Main Indices of the Library --->

Go!

Copyright 1998 - 2016 ChanRobles Publishing Company

| Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

| chanrobles.com

RED