Republic of the Philippines repeatedly attacked the

Supreme Court complainants and his siblings titles

Manila over the property subject of the
unlawful detainer case;
EN BANC
(2) The respondents commission of
forum-shopping by filing the subject
CONRADO QUE, A.C. No. cases in order to impede, obstruct,
Complainant, and frustrate the efficient
PUNO, administration of justice for his own
CARPIO, personal gain and to defeat the
CORONA, right of the complainant and his
CARPIO MORALES, siblings to execute the MeTC and
CHICO-NAZARIO, RTC judgments in the unlawful
VELASCO, JR., detainer case;
NACHURA,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE (3) CASTRO,
The respondents lack of candor and
BRION, respect towards his adversary and
PERALTA, the courts by resorting to falsehood
BERSAMIN, and deception to misguide, obstruct
DEL CASTILLO, and impede the due administration
ABAD, and of justice. The respondent asserted
VILLARAMA, JR., falsehood in the motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of
ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. Promulgated: the petition for annulment of
Respondent. judgment by fabricating an
December 4, 2009 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
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to cover up his lack of preparation;
the respondent also deceived his
DECISION clients (who were all squatters) in
supporting the above falsehood.[4]
PER CURIAM:
(4) The respondents willful and revolting
In a complaint for disbarment,[1] Conrado Que falsehood that unjustly maligned
(complainant) accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. and defamed the good name and
(respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo
Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the
Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the previous counsel of the respondents
following violations of the provisions of the Code of clients.
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court: (5) The respondents deliberate,
fraudulent and unauthorized
(1) The respondents abuse of court appearances in court in the petition
remedies and processes by filing a for annulment of judgment for 15
petition for certiorari before the litigants, three of whom are already
Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions deceased;
for annulment of title before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition (6) The respondents willful and
for annulment of judgment before fraudulent appearance in the
the RTC and lastly, a petition for second petition for annulment of
declaratory relief before the RTC title as counsel for the Republic of
(collectively, subject cases) to assail the Philippines without being
and overturn the final judgments of authorized to do so.
the Metropolitan Trial
Court[2] (MeTC) and RTC[3] in the
unlawful detainer case rendered Additionally, the complaint accused the
against the respondents clients. The respondent of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in
respondent in this regard, Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was
repeatedly raised the issue of lack ever given to him.
of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC
knowing fully-well that these courts The CBD required the respondent to answer the
have jurisdiction over the unlawful complaint.
detainer case. The respondent also
 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 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
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 General to
represent his clients in the case.[6]
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.
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 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 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 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 final
decisions of the MTC and the RTC in the unlawful
detainer case against his clients.[10]
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 judgment in the unlawful detainer
case and constituted prohibited forum-shopping.[11]
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. [12]
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
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
two (2) years.[13] On reconsideration, the Board of
Governors reduced the respondents suspension from
the practice of law to one (1) year. [14]
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 filed. In Plus Builders, Inc.
and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.,
[15]
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.[16]
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 the part of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City
over the ejectment case.[17]
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 injunction. The RTC dismissed this petition
on the basis of the motion to dismiss filed.[18]
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 both dismissed for lack of legal
personality on the part of the plaintiffs to file the
petition.[19]
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
administration of justice, resulting in prejudice to the
winning parties in that case.[20]

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,[21] 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
havoc on orderly judicial procedure;[22] and add to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the
courts.[23]
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,
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 (defendants therein) [24]
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 believed that
the decisions rendered both by the MeTC and the RTC
are null and void.[25] 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 only the Solicitor General
may commence reversion proceedings of public
lands[26] 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:
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.[27][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 adverse partys motion to
dismiss.[28] The records also show that RTC-Branch 101
held in abeyance the respondents application for
injunctive relief pending the resolution of the motion to
dismiss filed by the adverse party. [29] 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 allegedly transpired in the June
28, 2002 hearing. [30]
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 to mislead
the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law.[31]The respondent failed to
remember that his duty as an officer of the court
makes him an indispensable participant in the
administration of justice,[32] and that he is expected to
act candidly, fairly and truthfully in his work. [33] 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.
[34]
In case of conflict, his duties to his client yield to his
duty to deal candidly with the court.[35]
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 are consistent
with truth and honor.[36] He should not prosecute
patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute
clearly groundless actions.[37] 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 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 judgment; and second, in the second
petition for annulment of title.[38]
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 previously associated.
[39]
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 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 absence thereof, without leave
of court.[40] 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.[41]
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
belief of facts, would render the transaction
unconscientious."[42] Bad faith, on the other hand, is a
state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for
an ulterior purpose.[43] 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 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 not amiss to
note that this was the same defense he raised in the
first disbarment case.[44] 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 ill motives and malicious
intentions against the other party.[45]
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 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
of a complainant or a prosecutor.[46]
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.

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 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 FIRST DIVISION
he did not learn any lesson from his past experience
and since then has exhibited traits of incorrigibility. It is PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, A.C. No. 6672
time to put a finis to the respondents professional legal Complainant,
 P TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
resent:
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- v e r s u s - CORONA, INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO and
BERSAMIN, JJ. AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,
Respondent. Promulgated: ABROAD.
Sep
tem
ber (emphasis supplied)
4, Hence, this complaint.
200 Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano
9 and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said
calling card.[7]
x----------------------------------- The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar
------x Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[8]
RESOLUTION Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the
CBD, in its report and recommendation, [9] found that
CORONA, J.: respondent had encroached on the professional
practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02 [10] and
other canons[11] of the Code of Professional
This is a complaint for disbarment [1] filed by Pedro Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the
Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or
Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27,
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional Rule 138[12] of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD
services. recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier
paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients [2] to penalty.
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical
them financial assistance[3]and expeditious collection conduct of respondent but we modify the
on their claims.[4] To induce them to hire his services, recommended penalty.
he persistently called them and sent them text The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged
messages. intrusion by respondent into complainants professional
practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the
To support his allegations, complainant presented the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the
sworn affidavit[5] of James Gregorio attesting that said misconduct themselves constituted distinct
Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer- violations of ethical rules.
client relations with complainant and utilize Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers
respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan must adhere to, including the manner by which a
of P50,000. Complainant also attached respondents lawyers services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3
calling card:[6] of the CPR provides:

Front CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING

KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
LAW OFFFICE DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FACTS.
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the
Fe Marie L. Labiano practice of law is a profession and not a business;
Paralegal lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants
advertise their wares.[13] To allow a lawyer to advertise
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820 his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821 law, degrade the profession in the publics estimation
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719 and impair its ability to efficiently render that high
character of service to which every member of the bar
is called.[14]

Back Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO

SERVICES OFFERED: OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT
DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE LEGAL BUSINESS.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers.[15] Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.[16]
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with
Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:
RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR
ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST,
ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING
OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE.
This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation
of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent in order to gain
employment)[17] as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty.[18]
Complainant presented substantial
evidence[19] (consisting of the sworn statements of the
very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to
respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed
solicited legal business as well as profited from
referrals suits.
Although respondent initially denied knowing
Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during the
mandatory hearing.
Through Labianos actions, respondents law
practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed
to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos
word that respondent could produce a more favorable
result.
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited
employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and
Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court.
With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the
CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal
another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain
him by a promise of better service, good result or
reduced fees for his services.[20] Again the Court notes
that respondent never denied having these seafarers in
his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos
referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos
connection to his office.[21] Respondent committed an
unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal
practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of
the CPR.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture
with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule
16.04:
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the clients
interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent
advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter
he is handling for the client.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money
to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest
of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such
as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety
bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the
client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers
independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected. [22] It seeks to
ensure his undivided attention to the case he is
handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to
the clients cause. If the lawyer lends money to the
client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in
effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the
case or an additional stake in its outcome. [23] Either of
these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider
his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to
accept a settlement which may take care of his interest
in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation
of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause. [24]
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation
constitutes malpractice[25] which calls for the exercise
of the Courts disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-
solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions for
initiating contact with a prospective client for the
purpose of obtaining employment.[26] Thus, in this
jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect the public
from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous
lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal
profession.
Considering the myriad infractions of
respondent (including violation of the prohibition on
lending money to clients), the sanction recommended
by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the
wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate
to its findings.
A final word regarding the calling card presented in
evidence by petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is
a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.
[27]
For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to
announce their services by publication in reputable law
lists or use of simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the
following details:
(a) lawyers name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is
connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.[28]
Labianos calling card contained the
phrase with financial assistance. The phrase was
clearly used to entice clients (who already had
representation) to change counsels with a promise of
loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled
to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby
taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism
degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no
place in the legal profession. However, in the absence
of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the
Court is not prepared to rule that respondent was
personally and directly responsible for the printing and
distribution of Labianos calling cards. Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his
records in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino Court of the Philippines, and be furnished to the
for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Court Administrator to be circulated to all courts.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a SO ORDERED.
period of one year effective immediately from receipt
of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.