A.C. No. 9186 - Villonco vs. Roxas

Complainant: Atty. Juan Paulo T. Villonco, president of Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC).
Respondent: Atty. Romeo G. Roxas, hired as legal counsel of RREC on a contingency basis for a case involving a reclaimed land now occupied by the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) complex.

RREC was awarded approximately P10,926,071.29 related to expenses in the reclamation of the CCP complex.
After the award, the case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City for the execution of the decision.

The Board of Directors of RREC expressly instructed Atty. Roxas to defer filing the motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution until further notice; however, he filed the motion regardless.
Without obtaining prior consent from RREC, Atty. Roxas filed:

A Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Inhibition with the Court of Appeals (CA).
A complaint for serious misconduct against several CA Justices (Sesinando E. Villon, Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jose Catral Mendoza) and a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 774, acting on behalf of RREC.

RREC’s Board of Directors requested that Atty. Roxas voluntarily withdraw as counsel due to his unauthorized acts.
Upon his refusal, RREC terminated its retainer agreement with him and engaged another lawyer.
Despite the termination, Atty. Roxas continued to represent RREC in court and threatened to sue the Board members if he was not reinstated as counsel.

Atty. Roxas claimed that for over 21 years, his firm had effectively rendered legal services to RREC and that he had personally advanced expenses to sustain the case.
He argued that the contingency fee contract, with interest, granted him a right to continue his representation, and that his actions were based on an alleged “blanket authority” allowing him to exercise sound discretion without needing further approval from the client.
He asserted that his filings, including those against the CA Justices, were in furtherance of RREC’s case.

On May 17, 2013, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the penalty of censure, citing violations of Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Subsequently, on September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty, suspending Atty. Roxas from the practice of law for six (6) months in view of his blatant unauthorized acts and misconduct.

Whether Atty. Roxas’s defiant act of filing the motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution, contrary to the explicit instructions from RREC’s Board of Directors, constitutes gross misconduct.
Whether his subsequent unauthorized filings (motions for reconsideration and inhibition, administrative complaints against CA Justices, and a petition on constitutional grounds) breached the fiduciary trust reposed in him.

Whether his actions violated the relevant provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (specifically Canon 17 and Canon 15) and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the disciplinary measures recommended by the IBP and subsequently modified (initially a six-month suspension) were appropriate and proportionate to the offenses committed.

Whether RREC’s termination of the retainer agreement was justified, regardless of any claimed contractual rights by Atty. Roxas to continue representation due to the contingency fee arrangement.