A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.

htm

 
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila

EN BANC

CONRADO QUE, A.C. No. 7054

Complainant,
PUNO, C J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. Promulgated:

Respondent.
December 4, 2009
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

[1]
In a complaint for disbarment, 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 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

(1) The respondents 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
[2] [3]
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer
case rendered against the respondents 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 complainants and
his siblings titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case;

(2) The respondents 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 respondents 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
[4]
clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.

(4) The respondents 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 respondents clients.

(5) The respondents 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 respondents willful and fraudulent appearance in the second petition for
annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being
authorized to do so.

Additionally, the complaint accused the respondent of representing fifty-two (52)

2 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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.

[5]
In his Answer, 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 respondents 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

3 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

sufficient compliance with the rules on forum-shopping. The respondent likewise denied
having represented the Republic of the Philippines in the second petition for annulment of
title. The respondent pointed out that there was no allegation whatsoever that he was the sole
representative of both the complainants (his clients) and the Republic of the Philippines. The
respondent pointed out that the petition embodied a request to the Office of the Solicitor
[6]
General to represent his clients in the case.

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 complainants
counsel, Atty. Cesar P. Uy (Atty. Uy), had an axe to grind against him.

[7]
Lastly, the respondent posited in his pleadings 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
[8]
Case No. Q-03-48762, Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan (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
[9]
multiplicity of suits or brazenly engage in forum-shopping.

4 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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
[10]
final decisions of the MTC and the RTC in the unlawful detainer case against his clients.

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
[11]
judgment in the unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited forum-shopping.

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.
[12]
Catolico and to the presiding judge, all of which were untrue.

On the fifth and sixth charges, the Investigating Commissioner disregarded the respondents
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 respondents 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
Philippines. Despite this knowledge, the respondent solely signed the amended complaint for
and on behalf of his clients and of the Republic.
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
[13]
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
[14]
(1) year.

5 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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 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.

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
[15]
filed. In Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., 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
[16]
suspension to six (6) months.
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 respondents 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

6 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

[17]
the part of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City over the ejectment case.

Second, notwithstanding the CAs dismissal of the petition for certiorari, the respondent
again questioned the MeTCs and the RTCs 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
[18]
injunction. The RTC dismissed this petition on the basis of the motion to dismiss filed.

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 complainants title to the
property involved in the unlawful detainer case. The records show that these petitions were
[19]
both dismissed for lack of legal personality on the part of the plaintiffs to file the petition.

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 complainants 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 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.

Under the circumstances, 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

7 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

[20]
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
[21]
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
[22]
havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened
[23]
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. 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,

8 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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. The extrinsic fraud was alleged in the last paragraph of the petition, as follows:

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
[24]
(defendants therein)

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
[25]
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. 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
[26]
only the Solicitor General may commence reversion proceedings of public lands on
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. This second petition, filed by a private party and not
by the Republic, showed that: (a) the respondent and his clients requested that they be
represented by the Solicitor General in the proceedings; (b) the Republic of the Philippines
was simply impleaded in the amended petition without its consent as a plaintiff; and (c) the
respondent signed the amended petition where he alone stood as counsel for the plaintiffs. In
this underhanded manner, the respondent sought to compel the Republic to litigate and waste
its resources on an unauthorized and unwanted suit.

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 in this wise:

9 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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
[27]
TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE REMAINING PERIOD. [Underscoring and
emphasis theirs]

The records, however, 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
[28]
adverse partys motion to dismiss. The records also show that RTC-Branch 101 held in
abeyance the respondents application for injunctive relief pending the resolution of the
[29]
motion to dismiss filed by the adverse party. As stated in the order of the Presiding Judge
of RTC-Branch 101:
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
[30]
allegedly transpired in the June 28, 2002 hearing.
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
[31]
to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

10 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

The respondent failed to remember that his duty as an officer of the court makes him an
[32]
indispensable participant in the administration of justice, and that he is expected to act
[33]
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
[34]
demanding his duties to his clients may be. In case of conflict, his duties to his client
[35]
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 x x x

This Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only such means as
[36]
are consistent with truth and honor. He should not prosecute patently frivolous and
[37]
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 (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
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

11 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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
[38]
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. 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
[39]
previously associated. 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

12 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

he impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as plaintiff without its authority and consent, as
a surreptitious way of forcing the Republic to litigate. Notably, he signed the amended
complaint on behalf of all the plaintiffs his clients and the Republic.
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
[40]
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
[41]
measures against the erring lawyer for professional misconduct.
The Respondents Defenses

We find no merit in the respondents 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
[42]
belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious." Bad faith, on the other
hand, is a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of
[43]
self-interest, ill will or for an ulterior purpose. 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

13 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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 respondents allegations regarding his discretion to determine legal strategy, it is

[44]
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. 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 clients 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 lawyers 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 lawyers responsibility to
protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by
[45]
ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.
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.

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 complainants
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

14 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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.
xxx
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
[46]
of a complainant or a prosecutor.

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

15 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

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.

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. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

16 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice 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]
Id. at 24-32.
[6]
Id. at 31.
[7]
Supplemental Position Paper; id. at 131-134.
[8]
Id. at 148-156.
[9]
Id. at 156.
[10]
Id. at 150-151.
[11]
Id. at 151.
[12]
Id. at 152-153.
[13]
Id. at 147.
[14]
Resolution No. XVII-2008-657 dated December 11, 2008; Folder III of the rollo.
[15]
A.C. No. 7056 dated September 13, 2006, 501 SCRA 615.
[16]
A.C. No. 7056 dated February 11, 2009.

17 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM
A.C. No. 7054 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm

[17]
Rollo, p. 6.
[18]
Id. at 12.
[19]
Id. at 7-8.
[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, June 25, 2007, 525 SCRA 444, 454; see: Agpalo. supra note 20 at 121, citing Chempil
Export & Export Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil 619 (1995); and Ligon v. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil 503 (1998).
[24]
Petition for Annulment of Judgment, p. 25; rollo, p. 11.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
Id., pp. 30-31; PUBLIC LAND ACT, Section 101.
[27]
Id. at 13.
[28]
Id. at 13-14.
[29]
Id. at 12.
[30]
Id. at 155.
[31]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 20 (d).
[32]
Agpalo, supra note 20 at 99.
[33]
Id. at 100.
[34]
Id. at102.
[35]
Ibid.
[36]
Id. at 226.
[37]
Ibid.
[38]
Rollo, pp. 155-156.
[39]
Id. at 26.
[40]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 21.
[41]
Id., Sections 21 and 27.
[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]
Santiago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127440, January 27, 2007, 513 SCRA 69, 83.
[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, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 600-601.

18 of 18 12/23/2018, 5:33 PM