Case Digest (G.R. No. 210554)
Facts:
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, G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation; respondents are lawyers Walter T. Young, Jovito Gambol, and Dan Reynald R. Magat practicing under the firm name Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, disbarred lawyer Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., and Judge Ofelia L. Calo, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 211, Mandaluyong City.The antecedent litigation involved this Court’s liquidation order in Majority Stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation v. Lim, which transferred supervision of the liquidation to the appropriate Regional Trial Court; the raffling placed the liquidation in Branch 211, Mandaluyong, presided by Judge Calo. Lawyers of the firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat entered appearances for the liquidator. Petitioners opposed that firm’s appearance on the ground that Revilla had been disbarred by this Court in 2009 (Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7054).
At the RTC, Judge Calo overruled the opposition but limited the permitted appearance of Atty. Walter Young to the nonexistent “Young Law Firm” rather than under the name Young Revilla Gambol & Magat; private respondents explained they had retained Revilla’s name for sentimental reasons. Petitioners then filed a Petition under Rule 71 (indirect contempt) in this Court seeking to cite the firm, the individual lawyer-respondents, and Judge Calo for contempt for retaining and using the disbarred lawyer’s name and for allegedly permitting him to practice.
This Court required comments. The firm filed a consolidated Comment and Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment; petitioners filed a reply and motions which were partly granted. Judge Calo was ordered but did not file a comment. The Court considered prior authorities including San Luis v. Pineda, United States v. Ney, Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal‑Tenorio, and ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioners’ filing of this Rule 71 contempt petition while a disbarment complaint against respondents is pending before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines constitute forum shopping?
- Are private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat guilty of indirect contempt for maintaining and using the name of disbarred Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. in their firm name?
- Are private respondents Atty. Young, Atty. Gambol, and Atty. Magat guilty of indirect contempt for deliberately allowing a disbarred lawyer to engage in the practice of law?
- Is respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. guilty of contempt for allegedly continuing to practice law after disbarment?
- Is public respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo guilty of contempt...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)