A.C. No. 7054 - Que vs. Revilla, Jr.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7054)

Key Dates and Procedural Background

Relevant chronology includes successive filings by respondent to challenge final MeTC and RTC judgments in an unlawful detainer case: a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title before the RTC, a petition for annulment of judgment before the RTC, and a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC. The IBP CBD investigated and recommended disciplinary sanction; the IBP Board adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation and later reduced the recommended penalty on reconsideration. The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP determinations and imposed final discipline.

Applicable Law

The decision evaluates respondent’s conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 8, 10, 12, and 19 and their applicable rules), Rules 138 (Sections 20(d), 21 and 27) of the Rules of Court, and the rule against forum shopping. Given the decision’s date, the review and discipline proceed under the legal framework operative at that time, including the professional and procedural rules cited by the courts and the IBP.

Allegations and Grounds for Discipline

The complaint charged the respondent with: (1) abuse of court remedies and processes by repeatedly filing multiple actions (CA certiorari, two annulments of title, an annulment of judgment, and declaratory relief) to assail final MeTC and RTC judgments; (2) forum-shopping and filing multiple actions to impede execution of final judgments; (3) lack of candor and intentional falsehoods in court papers (including fabrication of an order attributed to the presiding judge and inducing clients to support false affidavits); (4) malicious and unfounded allegations maligning the late Atty. Catolico; (5) unauthorized appearances in court for numerous litigants (including deceased persons) in the annulment of judgment petition; and (6) unauthorized appearance purporting to represent the Republic of the Philippines in a petition for annulment of title, and improper impleading of some 52 litigants in a civil action without authority.

Respondent’s Answer and Defenses

Respondent explained his involvement as part of KDC’s pro bono work, asserting he inherited cases formerly handled by Atty. Catolico. He defended his filings as made in good faith to protect clients’ interests, advancing substantive grounds (lack of jurisdiction of MeTC/RTC, extrinsic fraud by Atty. Catolico, alleged extrinsic fraud by the complainant’s family, and the contention that the property was forest land). He denied unauthorized appearances, claimed inadvertent impleading of certain litigants and rectified any errors, contended that majority certification satisfied non-forum-shopping requirements for multi-party matters, and maintained he did not represent the Republic as sole counsel but had sought the Solicitor General’s participation.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

Investigating Commissioner Cunanan found the charges largely meritorious, except as to the specific allegation concerning 52 litigants in one civil case. The Commissioner concluded respondent abused legal remedies to forestall execution of final judgments; engaged in forum-shopping by filing multiplicity of suits and petitions aimed at delaying enforcement; made falsehoods and misrepresentations in pleadings (including fabricated statements attributed to the presiding judge and unsubstantiated attacks on Atty. Catolico); and undertook unauthorized appearances in at least two instances (annulment of judgment and a second annulment of title involving the Republic).

IBP Board of Governors’ Action

The IBP Board, adopting the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, initially recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years. On reconsideration, the Board reduced the recommended suspension to one year.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Supreme Court framed the principal issues as whether respondent committed the alleged unethical and professionally improper acts and, if so, what penalty should be imposed given the nature and multiplicity of infractions and respondent’s prior disciplinary record.

Supreme Court’s General Ruling and Prior Disciplinary Record

The Court agreed with the factual and legal determinations of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board as to liability, but modified the sanction. The Court took judicial notice that respondent previously had been disciplined in a related matter (Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.), where he was sanctioned for willful falsehood before a court, misuse of court procedures to delay execution of judgment, and collaboration with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law; that previous penalty had been reduced by the Court as an act of leniency. The prior sanction and the recurrence of similar misconduct were significant aggravating considerations.

Abuse of Court Processes — Factual Basis and Legal Assessment

The Court detailed the sequence of actions: a CA certiorari (dismissed for failure to demonstrate lack of jurisdiction), an RTC petition for annulment of judgment (dismissed on motion to dismiss), two petitions for annulment of title (dismissed for lack of legal personality), and a subsequent petition for declaratory relief seeking injunctive relief on the same property. The persistent pursuit of injunctive relief across multiple fora, after final judgments had become executory, evidenced use of procedural devices to obstruct execution of judgments. The Court held this conduct violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which obliges lawyers to observe procedural rules and forbids misuse of procedures to defeat the ends of justice.

Forum Shopping and Filing Multiple Actions

The Court found respondent’s conduct also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12, and the broader rule against forum shopping. By filing overlapping actions in different courts with the same objective—preventing execution of the unlawful detainer judgment—the respondent engaged in prohibited multiplicity of suits, degraded orderly judicial procedure, and contributed to docket congestion. The Court emphasized that filing a procedurally legitimate petition (e.g., certiorari to challenge jurisdiction) does not immunize successive filings that seek the same relief through different remedies and fora when the underlying purpose is to filibuster execution of adverse judgments.

Willful Falsehood and Lack of Candor to the Court

The Court identified specific instances of deliberate falsehood: internally inconsistent allegations in the petition for annulment of judgment (simultaneously alleging extrinsic fraud and asserting no second motion for reconsideration or appeal had been filed), the surreptitious impleading and signature on an amended petition purporting to involve the Republic to evade the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring reversion actions, and a false account of what transpired at an RTC hearing on June 28, 2002. The latter included attributing to the presiding judge a denial of a motion to dismiss and a directive to file an answer—representations contradicted by transcripts and the presiding judge’s order. The Court concluded respondent violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 (duty of candor and prohibition against falsehoods), and Rule 19.01, Canon 19 (requirement to use only fair and honest means), stressing that duties to the court supersede advocacy zeal where dishonesty is involved.

Maligning a Fellow Lawyer

The Court found respondent had unjustifiably charged the late Atty. Catolico with corrupt motives and deliberate neglect to support an extrinsic fraud claim. Respondent failed to show factual basis for the imputations and was in no position to substantiate the accusations given he assumed the cases only after Catolico’s death. This conduct violated Canon 8, which requires courtesy, fairness and candor toward professional colleagues; imputing wrongdoing to a deceased colleague who could not

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 7054)

Case Background and Procedural History

The complaint for disbarment was filed by Conrado Que before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) against Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.
The complaint alleged that the respondent filed a series of court actions (collectively, the subject cases) to assail and overturn final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC) in an unlawful detainer case brought by the complainant and his siblings.
The subject cases included: a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title before the RTC, a petition for annulment of judgment before the RTC, and a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC.
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline required the respondent to answer; the respondent submitted an Answer and supplemental pleadings, and the Investigating Commissioner prepared a Report and Recommendation.
The Board of Governors of the IBP CBD adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report and recommended suspension; on reconsideration the Board reduced the penalty recommendation.
The case reached the Supreme Court en banc as A.C. No. 7054; the Court issued a per curiam decision on December 4, 2009.

Charges Alleged in the Disbarment Complaint

Abuse of court remedies and processes by repeatedly filing the subject cases to attack and overturn final MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case, repeatedly raising lack of jurisdiction despite jurisdiction being proper, and repeatedly attacking the complainant’s and siblings’ titles to the subject property.
Forum-shopping: filing multiple actions to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice and to defeat the complainant’s right to execute judgments.
Lack of candor and respect toward adversary and courts by resorting to falsehood and deception, including fabrication of an alleged in-court order in a motion for reconsideration and inducing clients to support falsehoods.
Willful and revolting falsehood unjustly maligning and defaming the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico, the prior counsel for the respondent’s clients.
Deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court in the petition for annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom were deceased.
Willful and fraudulent appearance in the second petition for annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without authorization.
Additional accusation that the respondent represented fifty-two litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 without authority.

Respondent’s Answer and Stated Defenses

The respondent claimed membership in the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) which handles pro bono cases for marginalized persons and that he took over cases previously handled by other KDC members, including the unlawful detainer case formerly handled by the late Atty. Catolico.
He professed sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions to protect his clients’ interests; he asserted the petitions were based on valid grounds: alleged lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC and RTC, alleged extrinsic fraud by the late Atty. Catolico, and alleged extrinsic fraud by the complainant and his family.
He claimed to have discovered that the property subject of the unlawful detainer was forest land and not the complainant’s property.
With respect to allegations of falsehood, he maintained that his statements were based on his observations and notes taken during proceedings.
He denied unauthorized appearances, explained that the 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 were impleaded by inadvertence and were later dropped, and asserted that a majority (31 of 49) of litigants who signed certification constituted sufficient compliance with forum-shopping rules.
Regarding the alleged representation of the Republic, he asserted there was no allegation that he was the sole representative and that the petition requested the Office of the Solicitor General to represent his clients.
He contended the complaint was motivated by an opposing counsel’s animus (Atty. Cesar P. Uy) and that the present complaint violated the forum-shopping rule because similar accusations were the subject of a prior IBP CBD complaint (CBD Case No. 03-1099).

Findings and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner

Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan found all charges meritorious except the allegation concerning representation of 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762.
The Investigating Commissioner emphasized that while lawyers must zealously defend clients, they must also defend the dignity, authority and majesty of the law and courts and must not misuse procedures or encourage multiplicity of suits or forum-shopping.
He found unnecessary and repeated use of legal remedies by the respondent to forestall execution of final MeTC and RTC decisions.
He concluded filing multiple actions (two petitions for annulment of title, a petition for annulment of judgment, and a petition for declaratory relief) constituted prohibited forum-shopping and were intended to prevent execution of the unlawful detainer judgment.
He found ample evidence of dishonesty and falsities in pleadings, including fabricated allegations against Atty. Catolico and against the presiding judge.
He found the respondent appeared for parties without proper authorization in the petition for annulment of judgment (49 individuals, with fewer giving consent) and in the second petition for annulment of title (improperly impleading the Republic), and rejected the respondent’s explanations as glossing over unauthorized representation.
He recommended disciplinary action; his Report and Recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.

Board of Governors (IBP CBD) Action and Reconsideration

The Board of Governors of the IBP CBD, through Resolution No. XVII-2005-164 on CBD Case No. 03-1100, adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and recommended suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.
On reconsideration, the Board of Governors reduced the recommended suspension to one (1) year (Resolution No. XVII-2008-657 dated December 11, 2008).

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the respondent is liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct alleged in the complaint.
If liability is established, what penalty should be imposed.

Supreme Court’s Overall Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court agreed with the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors as to the respondent’s liability for professional misconduct, but found the recommended penalties inadequate.
The Court took judicial notice of a prior disciplinary case (Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7056) in which the respondent was previously sanctioned for willful falsehood, misuse of court procedures and collaborating with non-lawyers; the Court recalled that prior suspension had been initially two years but later reduced to six months.
Considering multiple violations, the respondent’s past disciplinary record, the natur