EN BANC

[A.C. No. 7054. December 4, 2009.]

CONRADO QUE , complainant, vs . ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. ,
respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM :
p

In a complaint for disbarment, 1 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)

The respondent's abuse of court remedies and processes by ling 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 nal judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court 2
(MeTC) and RTC 3 in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the
respondent's clients. The respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised
the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing fullywell that these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer
case. The respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainant's and
his siblings' titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer
case;

(2)

The respondent's commission of forum-shopping by ling the

subject cases in order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the ef cient
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 respondent's 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 led 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
clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood. 4
HAEDIS

(4)

The respondent's willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty.
Alfredo Catolico (Aty. Catolico) , the previous counsel of the
respondent's clients.
(5)

The respondent's 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 respondent's 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 fty-two (52)

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.
In his Answer, 5 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 respondent's present clients
were the defendants.
With respect to paragraph 1 of the disbarment complaint, the respondent
professed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in ling the petitions complained of; he
led 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 nal
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 recti ed 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 certi cation constituted suf cient 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 Of ce of the Solicitor General to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

represent his clients in the case. 6

ATHCac

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 led
because the complainant's counsel, Atty. Cesar P. Uy (Atty. Uy), had an axe to grind
against him.
Lastly, the respondent posited in his pleadings 7 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 led against him in CBD Case No. 03-1099
led by Atty. Uy before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline. The respondent also
posited that the present complaint was led 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 Case No. Q-03-48762, Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan 8
(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 multiplicity of suits or brazenly
engage in forum-shopping. 9

On the rst 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 nal decisions of the MTC and the RTC in the unlawful detainee
case against his clients. 1 0
On the second charge, the Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act of the
respondent in ling 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 nal judgment in the unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited
forum-shopping. 1 1
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. Catolico and to the presiding judge, all of which were untrue. 1 2
IcSHTA

On the fth and sixth charges, the Investigating Commissioner disregarded the
respondent's 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 certi cation of non-forum
shopping requirement. The Investigating Commissioner likewise brushed aside the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

respondent's 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 respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2)
years. 1 3 On reconsideration, the Board of Governors reduced the respondent's
suspension from the practice of law to one (1) year. 1 4
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 Court's 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
led involving the respondent; another complaint invoking similar grounds has
previously been led. In Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E.
Revilla, Jr., 1 5 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 suspension to six (6) months. 1 6

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 nal judgments of the MeTC and RTC in the
unlawful detainer case against these clients:
AIDcTE

First, the respondent led 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 nal judgments of the MeTC and RTC for lack of jurisdiction. In
dismissing the respondent's 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 the part of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City over the ejectment case. 1 7

Second, notwithstanding the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari, the
respondent again questioned the MeTC's and the RTC's 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 injunction. The RTC dismissed this petition on the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

basis of the motion to dismiss filed. 1 8

Third, the respondent successively led two petitions (docketed as Civil Case
No. Q-99-38780 and Civil Case No. Q-02-46885) for annulment of the complainant's
title to the property involved in the unlawful detainer case. The records show that these
petitions were both dismissed "for lack of legal personality on the part of the plaintiffs"
to file the petition. 1 9
Fourth, after the dismissals of the petition for annulment of judgment and the
petitions for annulment of title, the respondent this time led 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
complainant's 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 led in several courts the petition for certiorari, the petition for
annulment of judgment, the second petition for annulment of complainant's title and the
petition for declaratory relief reveal the respondent's persistence in preventing and
avoiding the execution of the nal decisions of the MeTC and RTC against his clients in
the unlawful detainer case.
Under the circumstances, the respondent's 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 nal
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 ef cient administration of justice, resulting in prejudice to the
winning parties in that case. 2 0
aHSAIT

Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping

The respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, 2 1 as well as the rule against forum shopping, both
of which are directed against the ling of multiple actions to attain the same objective.
Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the
administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; 2 2 and add to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. 2 3
While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts' jurisdiction
may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantively erroneous) move, the respondent's
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, intentional and
deliberate falsehood in the pleadings he filed with the lower courts.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

First, in the petition for annulment of judgment led 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
le the proper remedy alien 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 (defendants therein) . . . 2 4

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
led, as he believed " that the decisions rendered both by the MeTC and the RTC are null
and void." 2 5 These con icting 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 of ce colleague, another violation we
shall separately discuss below.
CEHcSI

Second, the respondent employed another obvious subterfuge when he led his
second petition for annulment of title, which was an unsuccessful attempt to
circumvent the rule that only the Solicitor General may commence reversion
proceedings of public lands 2 6 on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. This second
petition, led 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:
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 TO THE
COMPLAINT WITHIN THE REMAINING PERIOD . 2 7 [Underscoring and
emphasis theirs]

The records, however, disclose that the scheduled hearing for June 28, 2002 was
actually for the respondent's application for temporary restraining order and was not a
hearing on the adverse party's motion to dismiss. 2 8 The records also show that RTCBranch 101 held in abeyance the respondent's application for injunctive relief pending
the resolution of the motion to dismiss led by the adverse party. 2 9 As stated in the
order of the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 101:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

Browsing over the records of this case speci cally 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
af davits, his false claims on what allegedly transpired in the June 28, 2002 hearing. 3 0
cCTaSH

For these acts, we nd the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 the
Code of Professional Responsibility for violating the lawyer's duty to observe candor
and fairness in his dealings with the court. This provision states:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be mislead by an artifice.

Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer
"never to mislead the judge or any judicial of cer by an arti ce or false statement of
fact or law." 3 1 The respondent failed to remember that his duty as an of cer of the
court makes him an indispensable participant in the administration of justice, 3 2 and
that he is expected to act candidly, fairly and truthfully in his work. 3 3 His duty as a
lawyer obligates him not to conceal the truth from the court, or to mislead the court in
any manner, no matter how demanding his duties to his clients may be. 3 4 In case of
conflict, his duties to his client yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court. 3 5
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 . . .

This Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only such means
as are consistent with truth and honor. 3 6 He should not prosecute patently frivolous
and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions. 3 7 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

We nd it signi cant 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 respondent's petition for annulment of judgment also represented
that no second motion for reconsideration or appeal was led to contest the MeTC and
RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case for the reason that the respondent believed
the said decisions were null and void ab initio.
aTIEcA

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 Cunanan's nding that the respondent
twice represented parties without proper authorization: rst, in the petition for
annulment of judgment; and second, in the second petition for annulment of title. 3 8
In the rst instance, the records show that the respondent led 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 respondent's off-hand
explanation that he truly believed that a majority of the litigants who signed the
certi cation of non-forum shopping in the petition already gave him the necessary
authority to sign for the others. We nd 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 rms with which he was previously associated. 3 9 As Investigating
Commissioner Cunanan found, the respondent's explanation of compliance with the
rule on the certi cation 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 led an
amended petition where he impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as plaintiff
without its authority and consent, as a surreptitious way of forcing the Republic to
litigate. 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
latter's representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court. 4 0 The willful
unauthorized appearance by a lawyer for a party in a given case constitutes
contumacious conduct and also warrants disciplinary measures against the erring
lawyer for professional misconduct. 4 1

The Respondent's Defenses

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

We find no merit in the respondent's 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 belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious." 4 2 Bad
faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind af rmatively operating with furtive design or
with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for an ulterior purpose. 4 3 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.
HaIESC

In this case, we nd 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 nal 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 nd neither sincerity nor honest belief on the part of the respondent in
pleading the soundness and merit of the cases that he led in court to prevent the
execution of the MeTC and RTC decisions, considering his own conduct of presenting
con icting theories in his petitions. The succession of cases he led 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 respondent's allegations regarding his discretion to determine legal
strategy, it is not amiss to note that this was the same defense he raised in the rst
disbarment case. 4 4 As we explained in Plus Builders, the exercise of a lawyer's
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 delity 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 client's 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 delity as well to the
courts as to [his] clients.' Needless to state, the lawyer's delity 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 lawyer's
responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a
course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the
other party. 4 5

We cannot give credence to the respondent's claim that the disbarment case
was led because the counsel of the complainant, Atty. Uy, had an axe to grind against
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

him. We reject this argument, considering that it was not Atty. Uy who led 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.
cAEDTa

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 tness of a lawyer to continue acting
as an of cer of the court and a participant in the dispensation of justice an issue
where the complainant's 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 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 of cers. Not being intended to in ict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution.
xxx xxx 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 t 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 of cer 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 of ce of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no
occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor. 4 6

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 respondent's 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 signi cant 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.
CcAHEI

Additionally, disbarment is merited because this is not the respondent's rst

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

ethical infraction of the same nature. We penalized him in Plus Builders, Inc. and
Edgardo Garcia versus Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla for his willful and intentional falsehood
before the court; for misuse of court procedures and processes to delay the execution
of a judgment; and for collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. We
showed leniency then by reducing his penalty to suspension for six (6) months. We
cannot similarly treat the respondent this time; it is clear that he did not learn any
lesson from his past experience and since then has exhibited traits of incorrigibility. It is
time to put a nis to the respondent's professional legal career for the sake of the
public, the profession and the interest of justice.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM Resolution No. XVII2005-164 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 Lawyer's Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon
10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; and 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 .

Puno, C.J., Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Leonardo-de

Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., took no part due to close relations to a party.
Footnotes

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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

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.

Rollo, p. 6.

18.

Id. at 12.

19.

Id. at 7-8.

20.
21.

See: Agpalo, Comments on the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of
Judicial Conduct, p. 104 (2004 edition).
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.
23.

Supra note 20 at 104.

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. at 102.

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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com