CONRADO QUE vs ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR.

Facts:

Conrado Que filed for the disbarment of Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. before the IBP Committee on Bar
Discipline or CBD for violating provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court and alleged the following:

1. Revilla abused court remedies and processes.

2. He committed forum-shopping.
3. He fabricated 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.
4. He maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico),
the previous counsel of the respondents clients.
5. His unauthorized appearances and acted as counsel of Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to
do so.
Revilla Jr. answered the complaint:
He professed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions complained of; denied that he
made any unauthorized appearance in court and represented the Republic of the Philippines and that the
complaint was filed to harass, ridicule and defame his good name and reputation.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. 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 and DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Revilla is guilty of serious misconduct for abusing court procedures and processes and violated Rule
10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are
directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of
court processes.

He committed willful, intentional and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings he filed with the lower courts
and made him 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 and he also violated his duty as an
attorney and his oath as a lawyer never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law.

To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment of judgment, the respondent
attacked the name and reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of deliberate neglect, corrupt
motives and connivance with the counsel for the adverse party. He is 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.

He twice represented parties without proper authorization and violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized appearances.
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN

Facts:

AMA Computer College (AMACC) had a pending case in the RTC for expelling some students due to
having published objectionable features or articles in the school paper. Atty. Camacho, the counsel for the
expelled students filed a complaint against Atty. Pangulayan, counsel for AMACC, for violation of Canon 9 of
the Code of Professional Ethics which provides that "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the
subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most
particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not
undertake to advise him as to law."
The complaint was based on the fact that Atty. Pangulayan procured and effected from the expelled
students and their parents compromise agreements in which the students waived all kinds of claims they may
have against AMACC and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. The
compromise agreements were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without the consent and knowledge of Atty.
Camacho given that he was already the counsel for the students at that time. It was averred that the acts of Atty.
Pangulayan was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics

Ruling:
YES. Atty. Pangulayan is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law for having ciolated the Code
of Professional Ethics.
In this case, when the compromise agreements were formalized and effected by Atty. Pangulayan, Atty.
Camacho was already the retained counsel for the students in the pending case filed by the students against
AMACC and Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of such fact. However, Atty. Pangulayan still proceeded to
negotiate with the students and the parents without at least communicating the matter with their lawyer even
being aware that the students were being represented by counsel.
Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan, whether by design or oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the
canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty. Pangulayan in this case
fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
The act of Atty. Pangulayan is also in violation of Canon 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that "A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper
advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel."