G.R. No. 210554 - Yu Kimteng vs. Young

Petitioners: David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. Yu, Winnie L. Yu, Vivian L. Yu, Rosa Gan, Lilian Chua Woo Yukimteng, Santos Yu, Marcelo Yu, and Sin Chiao Yu Lim — majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation.
Respondents: Atty. Walter T. Young, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. (disbarred lawyer), Atty. Jovito Gambol, Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat — practicing under the law firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo, presiding Judge of Branch 211, RTC Mandaluyong City.

The Supreme Court disbarred Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. in December 2009 (A.C. No. 7054, Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.).
Ruby Industrial Corporation’s liquidation proceeding was ordered by the Supreme Court and transferred to RTC Branch 211, Mandaluyong City, under Judge Calo.
The law firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, through its lawyers Atty. Young, Atty. Gambol, and Atty. Magat, appeared as counsel for the liquidator in the liquidation proceeding.
An Opposition was filed against the law firm’s appearance citing that Revilla was disbarred since 2009.
The law firm replied that they kept Revilla’s name for charitable reasons despite his disbarment.
Judge Calo overruled the opposition but only allowed Atty. Young’s appearance if under the “Young Law Firm,” not Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. However, this firm name does not exist.
Petitioners then filed a Rule 71 contempt petition against the law firm, its lawyers and Judge Calo for contempt of court for the use of a disbarred lawyer’s name in the firm name and for Judge Calo’s order permitting appearance under a non-existent firm name.

Respondents filed comments denying contempt, arguing sentimentality and no intent to deceive by retaining Revilla’s name.
Respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate comment stating he omitted Revilla’s name in pleadings he signed and disclaimed authority to remove Revilla’s name from the firm name.
Petitioners argued contempt is distinct from disbarment and no forum shopping occurred despite a pending disbarment complaint.
Judge Calo did not file a comment.
The Court required comments, heard motions, and considered prior jurisprudence on disbarred lawyers’ names used in firm names and indirect contempt.

Whether Young, Gambol, and Magat committed indirect contempt by using the name of disbarred lawyer Revilla in their law firm’s name after his disbarment.

Whether these lawyers permitted Revilla, a disbarred attorney, to continue practicing law thus committing contempt.

Whether Revilla himself is in contempt for continuing to practice law after disbarment.

Whether Judge Calo is in contempt for allowing Atty. Young to appear under the name of the non-existent “Young Law Firm,” which purportedly shields use of the disbarred lawyer’s name.

Whether petitioners engaged in forum shopping by filing the contempt petition while a disbarment complaint is pending before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.