In the case of PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and EDGARDO C. GARCIA vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., , En Banc, A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009, the respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Philippine Supreme Court, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.
The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the motion for reconsideration. The decision was MODIFIED in that respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of the resolution. The original suspension period was two (2) years.
Let me digest the case below for legal research purposes.
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law – holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm.
Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. The courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision dated November 19, 1999, but were based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action he took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. He stresses that he was not the original lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel did not explain/argue their position very well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As the new counsel, respondent candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in the course of his interview. They maintained that they had been in open, adverse, continuous and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet title was resorted to in order to determine the rights of his clients respecting the subject property. He avers that he merely exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which his clients were entitled under the law, considering that his clients were subjected to harassment and threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the complainant. He posited that he was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a good father would be protective of his own family, and that his services to Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al were almost pro bono.
Finally, he submitted that if he was indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and forgiveness. He reiterated that he did not deserve the penalty of two years’ suspension, considering that the complaint failed to show him wanting in character, honesty, and probity; in fact, he had been a member of the bar for more than 20 years, served as former president of the IBP Marinduque Chapter, a legal aide lawyer of IBP Quezon City handling detention prisoners and pro bono cases, and is also a member of the Couples for Christ, and had had strict training in the law school he graduated from and the law offices he worked with. He was the sole breadwinner in the family with a wife who was jobless, four (4) children who were in school, a mother who was bedridden and a sick sister to support. The family’s only source of income was respondent’s private practice of law, a work he had been engaged in for more than twenty-five (25) years.
It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his full attention, diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause not only requires but also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to succeed. In this case, respondent may not be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondent’s acts complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication and conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth and justice. This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.
At any rate, the Court showed compassion to the respondent in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondent’s length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, and respondent’s advanced age, among other things, which have varying significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty.
Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondent’s motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, the Court was persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards the respondent by reducing his suspension period from two years to six months.
