Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo Garin v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. A.C. No.
7056 September 13, 2006 Facts: Petitioners filed a disbarment case before the IBP against herein respondent for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. Plus Builders Inc. filed before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) of DAR a case against against Leopoldo De Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido De Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco; Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, et al; hereinafter called [tenants/farmers]. The PARAD ruled in favor of petitioner and against the tenants/farmers. Respondent filed a Petition for Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Issuance of TRO and to Quash Alias Writ of Execution with Demolition plus Damages before the DARAB Central Office notwithstanding the fact that this case was appealed by another lawyer (Atty. Willy Roxas). The DARAB Central Office issued a TRO plus an extension of another TRO. Respondent also filed an Indirect Contempt case against Plus Builders Inc. and their Board of Directors, Edgardo Garcia and [its] counsel Atty. Leopoldo S. Gonzalez before the same Office. The CA held that the orders of the DARAB are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The SC dismissed the case. Respondent then filed a verified Action to Quiet Title before the RTC of Imus, Cavite praying for a TRO to stop the enforcement of the Decisions of the higher courts to implement the PARAD. Respondent signed his pleading under a group of non-lawyers joining him in the practice of law as [KDC] LEGAL SERVICES, LAW OFFICERS AND ASSOCIATES which included KDC as law partners in violation of the Rules on the practice of law with non-lawyers. Under the Retainership Contract submitted by Respondent before the PARAD, it was specifically mentioned that legal fees were to be collected as counsel on record for the cooperative and respondent. Therefore, this contract was effectively used [for] unlawful solicitation of clients in the practice of law with non-lawyers, being the cooperative (KDC) to become counsel on record. The RTC quashed the earlier issued TRO and dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata because the Court of Appeals ruled that, the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator of DAR has already become final and that, prescription does not run against registered land.
IBP: Investigating Commissioner Espina found respondent guilty of violating the attorneys oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly, respondent had maliciously concealed the defeat of his clients in the case before the PARAD of Cavite and the higher courts, in order to secure a temporary restraining order from the RTC. As a result, he was able to delay the execution of the provincial adjudicators Decision. The IBP recommended a suspension of two years. Issue: WON the respondent engaged in the unlawful practice of law Held: The SC agreed with the IBP. Good faith, fairness and candor constitute the essence of membership in the legal profession. Thus, while lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their client, they must never abuse their right of recourse to the courts by arguing a case that has repeatedly been rejected. Neither should they use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass a party or to misuse judicial processes. These acts constitute serious transgression of their professional oath. In the present case, respondent claims good faith in pursuing the cause of his clients. The records show, however, that his course of legal action was obviously a stratagem. It was meant to delay unduly the execution of the provincial adjudicators Decision. It must be noted that when the Court of Appeals and the SC upheld the PARADs Decision, respondent resorted to a different forum to pursue his clients lost cause. In the disturbance compensation case, he represented his clients as tenants and acknowledged that complainants were the owners of the subject land. In the action to quiet title, however, he conveniently repudiated his previous admission by falsely alleging that his clients were adverse possessors claiming bona fide ownership. Consequently, he was able to obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the execution of the provincial adjudicators Decision. Clearly, he was shielding his clients from the Order of execution. Contrary to his later claim of ownership of the land, he cannot feign ignorance of his previous admission of a tenancy relationship existing between his clients and complainants, as correctly observed by IBP Commissioner Espina. The propensity of respondent for doublespeak was also revealed in his declaration that his clients were pauper litigants. His prayer for an exemption to pay court fees, on the ground that they did not have sufficient income, was granted by the trial court. Earlier, however, he admitted that they had engaged the services of his legal office for a fee of P20,000, in addition to P2,500 per appearance in court. Also, in the action to quiet title, he even alleged that they
were willing to post a bond to answer for damages, in the event that the court ruled in favor of the defendants. These facts contravene his claim that his clients could not afford to pay the appropriate court fees. Moreover, the SC agreed with the finding of IBP Commissioner Espina that the silence or failure of respondent to challenge the allegation that he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law may be deemed an admission of the truth of the accusation. We note that complainants successfully substantiated their claim that respondent, who held himself out as a law partner of the KDC Legal Services, Law Offices and Associates, was rendering legal services together with persons not licensed to practice law. His silence on this accusation is deemed an admission, especially because he had every chance to deny it. The SC held that the respondent be suspended for two years.
Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo Garin v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. A.C. No. 7056 February 11, 2009 Facts: This is a motion for reconsideration of the 2006 decision of the court finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and collaborating with nonlawyers in the illegal practice of law. On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondents clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainants rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm. Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. The courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision, but were based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action
he took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. He stresses that he was not the original lawyer in this case. Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for unauthorized practice of law, he humbly submits that there was actually no sufficient evidence to prove the same or did he fail to dispute this, contrary to the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He was counsel of Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. only and not of the cooperative Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC). He was just holding his office in this cooperative, together with Attys. Dominador Ferrer, Efren Ambrocio, the late Alfredo Caloico and Marciano Villavert. He signed the retainer agreement with Atty. Dominador to formalize their lawyer-client relationship, and the complainants were fully aware of such arrangement. Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and forgiveness. He reiterates that he does not deserve the penalty of two years suspension, considering that the complaint fails to show him wanting in character, honesty, and probity; in fact, he has been a member of the bar for more than 20 years, served as former president of the IBP Marinduque Chapter, a legal aid lawyer of IBP Quezon City handling detention prisoners and pro bono cases, and is also a member of the Couples for Christ, and has had strict training in the law school he graduated from and the law offices he worked with. He is the sole breadwinner in the family with a wife who is jobless, four (4) children who are in school, a mother who is bedridden and a sick sister to support. The familys only source of income is respondents private practice of law, a work he has been engaged in for more than twenty-five (25) years up to the present. Held: Violations of canons cannot be countenanced. However, the Court also knows how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondents length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, and respondents advanced age, among other things, which have varying significance in the Courts determination of the imposable penalty. Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondents motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, we are persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards him. We find the suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this case.
Reddi vs. Sebrio Jr.; Dishonesty
A.C. No. 7027
January 30, 2009
Facts: Complainant Tanu Reddi, an American citizen of Indian descent and a practicing endodontist [dentist] in New York, seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. for allegedly deceiving her into giving him a total of US $ 3,000,000 for the purpose of, among other
things, purchasing several real estate properties for resale. Inspired by the charitable works of her parents, complainant decided to build a hospital in the Philippines. However she needed more revenue to finance the said undertaking. Through the advice of her assistant Immaculada Luistro, complainant ventured into the real estate in the Philippines. It through this business hat he came to know and ask for legal advice from respondent. Respondent advised that complainant cannot own real estate in the Philippines since she is an alien, thus the remedy is to put up a corporation, and this corporation will be the one who will acquire the land. Three corporations then were created. Through the instance of respondent and financed by complainants, several lots were purchased. However, complainant was unaware that the transactions [sale of several lands] she had entered into were all bogus, since the sellers were not the real owners of the land. This fact was known to the respondent since he is the one who arranged the transactions. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty, hence violating the Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility. Ruling: Yes, the commissioner who investigated the case of respondent [result of the investigation was adopted by the Supreme Court] found respondent to have committed fraudulent acts which constitute violations of the lawyers oath and numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he offered properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that complainant was dealing with the true owners thereof. The court found that respondents dishonest and deceitful conduct with respect to the intended transactions, real property acquisitions which turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently established. Explained the court, "to reiterate, by his own admission, respondent received a total of US$544,828 from complainant, which he could not properly account for. The orchestrated manner in which he carried out his fraudulent scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by taking advantage of complainants naivete in the workings of the real estate business in the Philippines, depict a man whose character falls way, way short of the exacting standards required of him as a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Thus, respondent is no longer fit to remain as such. The court in admonition reiterates that if the practice of law, however, is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning." WHEREFORE, respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is DISBARRED, and his name is
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED TO RETURN to complainant the amount of US$544,828.
