EN BANC

[A.C. No. 5580. June 15, 2005.]

SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., as represented
by REBECCA V. LABRADOR , complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO B.
ROMANILLOS, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM :
p

This is a Petition 1 for disbarment against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for allegedly
representing conicting interests and for using the title "Judge" despite having been
found guilty of grave and serious misconduct in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos. 2
The facts are as follows:
In 1985, respondent represented San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. (SJHAI)
before the Human Settlements Regulation Commission (HSRC) in a case 3 against
Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) for violation of the Subdivision and Condominium
Buyer's Protection Act (P.D. No. 957). SJHAI alleged that Lot No. 224 was designated
as a school site in the subdivision plan that DCI submitted to the Bureau of Lands in
1961 but was sold by DCI to spouses Ramon and Beatriz Durano without disclosing
it as a school site.
While still the counsel for SJHAI, respondent represented Myrna and Antonio
Montealegre in requesting for SJHAI's conformity to construct a school building on
Lot No. 224 to be purchased from Durano.
When the request was denied, respondent applied for clearance before the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in behalf of Montealegre. Petitioner's
Board of Directors terminated respondent's services as counsel and engaged another
lawyer to represent the association.
DEScaT

Respondent also acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for
DCI in Civil Case No. 18014 entitled "San Jose Homeowners, Inc. v. Durano and
Corp., Inc." led before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134. Thus,
SJHAI led a disbarment case against respondent for representing conicting
interests, docketed as Administrative Case No. 4783.
iatdc2005

In her Report 4 dated August 3, 1998, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro

of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
made the following findings:
. . . Respondent failed to observe candor and fairness in dealing with his

clients, knowing fully well that the Montealegre case was adverse to the
Complainant wherein he had previously been not only an active board
member but its corporate secretary having access to all its documents
condential or otherwise and its counsel in handling the implementation of
the writ of execution against its developer and owner, Durano and Co. Inc.
Moreso, when Respondent acted as counsel for the substituted defendant
Durano and Co. Inc., Lydia Durano-Rodriguez; the conict of interest
between the latter and the Complainant became so revealing and yet
Respondent proceeded to represent the former.
xxx xxx xxx
For his defense of good faith in doing so; inasmuch as the same wasn't
controverted by the Complainant which was his rst oense; Respondent
must be given the benet of the doubt to rectify his error subject to the
condition that should he commit the same in the future; severe penalty will
be imposed upon him. 5

The Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of the complaint with the

admonition that respondent should observe extra care and diligence in the practice
of his profession to uphold its dignity and integrity beyond reproach.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner, which we noted in a resolution dated March 8,
1999.
Notwithstanding the admonition, respondent continued representing Lydia DuranoRodriguez before the Court of Appeals 6 and this Court 7 and even moved for the
execution of the decision.
Thus, a second disbarment case was led against respondent for violation of the
March 8, 1999 Resolution in A.C. No. 4783 and for his alleged deceitful conduct in
using the title "Judge" although he was found guilty of grave and serious
misconduct.
Respondent used the title "Judge" in his oce letterhead, correspondences and
billboards which was erected in several areas within the San Jose Subdivision
sometime in October 2001.
In his Comment and Explanation, 8 respondent claimed that he continued to
represent Lydia Durano-Rodriguez against petitioner despite the March 8, 1999
Resolution because it was still pending when the second disbarment case was led.
He maintained that the instant petition is a rehash of the rst disbarment case from
which he was exonerated. Concerning the title "Judge", respondent stated that
since the ling of the instant petition he had ceased to attach the title to his name.
CaAcSE

On July 7, 2003, the matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. 9

Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. reported that respondent did not
violate the admonition because it referred to future cases only and not to cases
subject of A.C. No. 4783. Besides, petitioner never questioned the propriety of
respondent's continued representation of Lydia Durano-Rodriguez on appeal until
the case was terminated.
The Investigating Commissioner, however, believed that respondent was deceitful
when he used the title "Judge", thus creating a false impression that he was an
incumbent.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended thus:
In view of the foregoing considerations, this Commissioner respectfully
recommends the following penalty range to be deliberated upon by the
Board for imposition on Respondent: minimum penalty of reprimand to a
maximum penalty of four (4) months suspension. It is further
recommended that in addition to the penalty to be imposed, a stern warning
be given to Respondent in that should he violate his undertaking/promise not
to handle any case in the future where the Complainant would be the
adverse party and/or should he again use the title of "Judge" which would
create an impression that he is still connected to the judiciary, a more severe
penalty shall be imposed on him by the Commission.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

The IBP Board of Governors approved with modication

recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thus:

the report

and

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED, with modication, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
this Resolution as Annex "A", and, nding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
considering Respondent's violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Roberto Romanillos is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for six (6) months with a WARNING that should he
violate his undertaking/promise a more severe penalty shall be imposed
against him.

Undoubtedly, respondent represented the inconsistent interests of SJHAI, DCI as

substituted by Lydia Durano-Rodriguez and the Montealegres. Respondent was
admonished yet he continued to represent Durano-Rodriguez against SJHAI.
SDEHIa

It is inconsequential that petitioner never questioned the propriety of respondent's

continued representation of Lydia Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of opposition does not
mean tacit consent. As long as the lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two
(2) or more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his oath. Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility specically mandates that a lawyer shall not
represent conicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure. Incidentally, it is also misleading for respondent to insist that he

was exonerated in A.C. No. 4783.

We agree with the IBP that respondent's continued use of the title "Judge" violated
Rules 1.01 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a lawyer
from engaging in deceitful conduct and from using any misleading statement or
claim regarding qualications or legal services. The quasi-judicial notice he posted in
the billboards referring to himself as a judge is deceiving. It was a clear attempt to
mislead the public into believing that the order was issued in his capacity as a judge
when he was dishonorably stripped of the privilege.
AIDTSE

Respondent did not honorably retire from the judiciary. He resigned from being a
judge during the pendency of Zarate v. Judge Romanillos, where he was eventually
found guilty of grave and serious misconduct and would have been dismissed from
the service had he not resigned.
In that case, respondent was found guilty of illegal solicitation and receipt of
P10,000.00 from a party litigant. We, ruled thus:
Considering the foregoing, respondent Judge Roberto B. Romanillos is
hereby found guilty of grave and serious misconduct aecting his integrity
and honesty. He deserves the supreme penalty of dismissal. However,
respondent, in an obvious attempt to escape punishment for his misdeeds,
tendered his resignation during the pendency of this case. . . .
Consequently, we are now precluded from dismissing respondent from the
service. Nevertheless, the ruling in People v. Valenzuela (135 SCRA 712
[1985]), wherein the respondent judge likewise resigned before the case
could be resolved, nds application in this case. Therein it was held that the
rule that the resignation or retirement of a respondent judge in an
administrative case renders the case moot and academic, is not a hard and
fast rule. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
ACCORDINGLY, in view of our aforestated nding that respondent Judge
Romanillos is guilty of grave and serious misconduct which would have
warranted his dismissal from the service had he not resigned during the
pendency of this case, and it appearing that respondent has yet to apply for
his retirement benets and other privileges if any; the Court, consistent with
the penalties imposed in Valenzuela ( supra.), hereby orders the FORFEITURE
of all leave and retirement benets and privileges to which herein respondent
Judge Romanillos may be entitled WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement and/or
reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including
government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.
SO ORDERED.

10

The penalty imposed upon him in said case included forfeiture of all leave and
retirement benets and privileges to which he may be entitled with prejudice to
reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of

government, including government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.

Certainly, the use of the title 'Judge' is one of such privileges.
We have previously declared that the use of titles such as "Justice" is reserved to
incumbent and retired members of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan and may not be used by any other ocial of the Republic,
including those given the rank of "Justice". 11 By analogy, the title "Judge" should be
reserved only to judges, incumbent and retired, and not to those who were
dishonorably discharged from the service. As correctly pointed out by the
Investigating Commissioner, the right to retain and use said title applies only to the
aforementioned members of the bench and no other, and certainly not to those who
were removed or dismissed from the judiciary, such as respondent.
HIETAc

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. 12

It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to
possess good moral character. 13 Lawyers should act and comport themselves with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public's
faith in the legal profession. 14
To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the
obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that, "of all
classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law," it is
imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath
and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the legal profession. 15
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. We are mindful that
the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, for only the most
imperative reasons, 16 and in clear cases of misconduct aecting the standing and
moral character of the lawyer as an ocer of the court and as a member of the bar.
17

This is not respondent's rst infraction as an ocer of the court and a member of
the legal profession. He was stripped of his retirement benets and other privileges
i n Zarate v. Judge Romanillos. 18 In A.C. No. 4783, he got o lightly with just an
admonition. Considering his previous infractions, respondent should have adhered
to the tenets of his profession with extra fervor and vigilance. He did not. On the
contrary, he manifested undue disrespect to our mandate and exhibited a
propensity to violate the laws. He is thus unt to discharge the duties of his oce
and unworthy of the trust and condence reposed on him as an ocer of the court.
His disbarment is consequently warranted.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 27.
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his oce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such oce, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission

to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior

court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos is DISBARRED and his name

is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be
entered in respondent's record as a, member of the Bar, and notice of the same be
served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Oce of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
IaEACT

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna,
Tinga, Chico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.

Rollo, pp. 1-14.

2.

312 Phil. 679 (1995).

3.

HSRC Case No. REM-021082-0822 (NHA-80-309).

4.

Rollo, pp. 15-20.

5.

Id. at 19-20.

6.

"SJHAI v. HLURB, et al.," docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67844.

7.

"SJHAI v. HLURB, et al.," docketed as G.R. No. 153980.

8.

Rollo, pp. 31-33.

9.

Id. at 46.

10.

Supra, note 2, pp. 692-693.

11.

JBC No. 001: Re JBC Emoluments, July 20, 1989.

12.

13.
14.

Lao v. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, 1 July 2003, 405 SCRA 227, 235; Eustaquio v.
Rimorin, A.C. No. 5081, 24 March 2003, 399 SCRA 422, 429; Sebastian v. Atty.
Calis , 372 Phil. 673, 681; Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., Adm. Case No. 3248, 18 September
1992, 214 SCRA 1, 16.
Ernesto L. Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics (1999), p. 22.

Malecdan v. Pekas , A.C. No. 5830, 26 January 2004, 421 SCRA 7, 21; Rivera v.
Corral, Adm. Case No. 3548, 4 July 2002, 384 SCRA 1, 11.

15.

De Guzman v. De Dios , A.C. No. 4943, 26 January 2001, 350 SCRA 320, 326.

16.

De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554, 558 (1939).

17.

Montano v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines , A.C. No. 4215, 21 May 2001, 358
SCRA 1, 10.

18.

In National Bureau of Investigation v. Reyes , A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120, 21 February

2000, 326 SCRA 109, respondent judge therein was found guilty of bribery. He
was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service and further disbarred from
the practice of law.