DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This is a Petition[1] for disbarment against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for allegedly
representing conflicting 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 Buyers
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 SJHAIs 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. Petitioners Board
of Directors terminated respondents services as counsel and engaged another lawyer
to represent the association.
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. filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134. Thus, SJHAI filed
a disbarment case against respondent for representing conflicting interests, docketed as
Administrative Case No. 4783.
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 confidential 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 conflict of interest between the latter and the
Complainant became so revealing and yet Respondent proceeded to represent the
former.
For his defense of good faith in doing so; inasmuch as the same wasnt controverted
by the Complainant which was his first offense; Respondent must be given the benefit
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]
he was exonerated. Concerning the title Judge, respondent stated that since the filing
of the instant petition he had ceased to attach the title to his name.
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
respondents 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:
privileges if any; the Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Valenzuela
(supra.), hereby orders the FORFEITURE of all leave and retirement benefits 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 benefits 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 suchprivileges.
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 official 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.
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 publics
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 affecting the standing and moral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.[17]
This is not respondents first infraction as an officer of the court and a member of
the legal profession. He was stripped of his retirement benefits and other privileges
in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos.[18] In A.C. No. 4783, he got off 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 unfit to discharge the duties of his office and unworthy of the trust
and confidence reposed on him as an officer of the court. His disbarment is
consequently warranted.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Id. at 19-20.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Id. at 46.
[10]
[11]
[12]
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.
[13]
[14]
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]
[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.