Case Summary (G.R. No. 210554)
Background and Case Origin
The Supreme Court ordered the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation and assigned Branch 211 of the RTC, Mandaluyong City, under Judge Calo, to supervise the liquidation. The law firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, composed of Atty. Young, Atty. Gambol, and Atty. Magat, entered their appearance as legal counsel for the liquidator. Opposition was filed against their appearance, citing the disbarment of Revilla and asserting that his name should not be part of the law firm’s name. The law firm replied that they retained Revilla’s name as an act of charity.
Issue of Retaining Disbarred Lawyer’s Name in Firm Name
Judge Calo overruled the opposition but allowed Atty. Young’s appearance only under “Young Law Firm,” which does not exist, and not under “Young Revilla Gambol & Magat,” to prevent misconception that a disbarred lawyer still practiced law. Petitioners then filed the present contempt petition under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, seeking to cite the law firm and Judge Calo for contempt for the improper use of Revilla’s name and the judge’s purportedly incorrect order allowing Atty. Young’s appearance under a non-existent firm name.
Respondents’ Position and Defense
Respondents Young and Magat argued the retention of Revilla’s name was sentimental and not intended to deceive the public. They compared the situation to the common practice of law firms retaining the names of deceased or retired partners. They contended that the retention did not confer additional value or enhance the lawyers’ standing. They also accused the petitioners of obstructing the liquidation process and engaging in forum shopping by filing multiple complaints, including a disbarment complaint against the respondents with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Atty. Gambol filed a separate comment stating that he ceased including Revilla’s name in his signed pleadings and lacked authority to decide firm matters such as removal of names.
Petitioners’ Rejoinder and Key Issues Raised
Petitioners denied forum shopping, citing the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings, and argued the contempt and disbarment proceedings are separate legal processes with distinct purposes. The principal issues identified were:
- Whether the respondents are in contempt for using the name of a disbarred lawyer in the firm name.
- Whether they are in contempt for deliberately allowing a disbarred lawyer to practice law.
- Whether the disbarred lawyer himself is in contempt for practicing law post-disbarment.
- Whether Judge Calo is in contempt for allowing Atty. Young to appear under a non-existent firm name.
- Whether the filing of the contempt petition despite an ongoing disbarment complaint constitutes forum shopping.
Legal Standards: Rule 71 on Contempt and Definition of Contempt
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines indirect contempt and sets procedural safeguards. Contempt is broadly defined as willful disregard or disobedience of judicial authority, including conduct that obstructs or degrades the administration of justice. Lawyers are officers of the court and must observe professional and ethical standards, including accurate representation in firm names.
Retention of a Disbarred Lawyer’s Name Vs. Deceased Partner’s Name
The court stressed a clear distinction between retaining the name of a deceased partner and a disbarred lawyer in a firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility permits using a deceased partner’s name only if all communications indicate the partner’s death to avoid misleading the public. Retaining the name of a disbarred lawyer, however, misleads the public into believing the individual is authorized to practice law, violating professional ethics and the law.
Prevailing jurisprudence rejects unauthorized use of names that imply professional authority where none exists, reinforcing that the use of a disbarred lawyer's name in a firm’s title is impermissible.
Precedents on Practice of Law by Disbarred or Unauthorized Individuals
The decision cited San Luis v. Pineda, holding that practicing law while disbarred constitutes contempt. United States v. Ney similarly established that using a name of a person unauthorized to practice law in a law firm’s name is misbehavior amounting to contempt. Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio reinforced the prohibition against lawyers allowing non-members to misrepresent themselves as lawyers, underscoring the public interest in limiting legal practice to duly qualified professionals.
Findings on Liability of Respondents
Respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat were found guilty of indirect contempt for retaining the name of disbarred Atty. Revilla in the firm name despite his disbarment since 2009 and for actions misleading the public regarding legal representation. Conversely, Atty. Gambol’s efforts to omit Revilla’s name in pleadings and his lack of authority regarding firm decisions led to dismissal of the complaint against him. The court did not rule on Revilla’s contempt due to procedural deficiencies such as lack of proper service.
Sanctions Imposed
In accordance with Rule 71, Section 7, the court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00) each on respondents Young and Magat. They were ordered to correct all firm signage, notices of appearance, stationery, and related materials to remove Revilla’s name within five days from receipt of the decision.
Ruling on Judge Calo’s Alleged Contempt
Petitioners sought to cite Judge Calo in contempt for directing Atty. Young to appear under the non-existent “Young Law Firm” to avoid association with Revilla. While the court acknowledged this as an erroneous exercise of judgment, it concluded that the appropriate remedy is not contempt proceedings but administrative in nature. The petition against Judge Calo was re-docketed as an administrative case pursuant to the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to discipline lower court judg
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210554)
Parties and Background Facts
- Petitioners are the majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation, namely 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.
- Respondents include lawyers Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. 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 Branch 211, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mandaluyong City.
- Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. was disbarred in December 2009 by the Supreme Court En Banc in A.C. No. 7054 (Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.).
- The liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation was ordered by the Supreme Court and entrusted to Branch 211 of the RTC, Mandaluyong City, presided over by Judge Calo.
- The law firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat entered their appearance as counsel for the liquidator in related proceedings.
- An opposition was filed against the firm’s appearance on the basis of Revilla’s disbarment and inclusion of his name in the firm name.
- The firm replied that retention of Revilla’s name in the firm name was an act of charity and sentimental value.
- Judge Calo overruled the opposition but allowed Atty. Young to appear under a differently named firm “Young Law Firm,” which in fact does not exist.
- Due to this, petitioners filed a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 against the law firm and Judge Calo.
Issues Presented
- Whether the private respondents Atty. Young, Atty. Gambol, and Atty. Magat are in indirect contempt of court for retaining the disbarred lawyer Revilla’s name in the firm name.
- Whether respondents are in contempt for allowing or enabling a disbarred lawyer (Revilla) to engage in the practice of law.
- Whether Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is in contempt for practicing law despite disbarment.
- Whether Judge Calo is in contempt for permitting Atty. Young’s appearance under a non-existent firm named “Young Law Firm.”
- Whether filing this Petition concomitant with a pending disbarment complaint constitutes forum shopping.
Legal Framework on Contempt of Court
- Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines indirect contempt as including misbehavior of court officers, disobedience to lawful court orders, unlawful interference with court processes, and assuming to be an attorney without authority.
- Contempt is a willful disregard or disobedience of judicial authority, encompassing acts that impede or degrade the administration of justice.
- Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits false, misleading, or assumed firm names and requires that use of a deceased partner’s name includes indication of their death to avoid misleading the public.