Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

EN BANC

CONRADO QUE, A.C. No. 7054

Complainant,
PUNO, C J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. Promulgated:

Respondent.
December 4, 2009
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

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 respondents abuse of court remedies and processes by filing 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 final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court[2] (MeTC) and RTC[3] in the
unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondents clients. The respondent in this
regard, repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing
fully-well that these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The respondent
also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his siblings titles over the property subject of
the unlawful detainer case;

(2) The respondents commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to
impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient 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 respondents 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 filed by the

Page 1 of 9
 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]

(4) The respondents willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the good
name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous counsel
of the respondents clients.

(5) The respondents 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 respondents 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 fifty-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 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 Philippinesin 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

Page 2 of 9
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

Page 3 of 9
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]

Page 4 of 9
 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 thedecisions 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.

Page 5 of 9
 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.

Page 6 of 9
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:

Page 7 of 9
 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]

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

Page 8 of 9
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 he did not learn any lesson from his past experience and since then has
exhibited traits of incorrigibility. It is time to put a finis to the respondents professional legal 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.

Page 9 of 9