1. .PLUS BUILDERS, INC. and E. C. GARCIA, vs. ATTY. A. E. REVILLA, JR., A.C. No. 7056

September 13, 2006

FACTS:

Complainants charged Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. with committing a willful and intentional falsehoodbefore the court; misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; andcollaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. Plus Builders Inc. filed before theProvincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) of DAR, the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD)rendered a consolidated Decision in favor of petitioner/complainant [Plus Builders, Inc.], and against[tenants/farmers]. Tenants/farmers filed several verified pleadings as part of the records of DARABcases above-mentioned alleging under oath that they were 'MAGSASAKANG NAMUMUWISAN' or meretenants of subject properties, acknowledging the rights of the registered owners at that time, evenbefore the ownership and title were transferred to Petitioner/ Complainant Plus Builders, Inc. OnDec[ember] 17, 1999, counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS who at that time was Atty. Damian S. J.Vellaseca, filed a pro-forma Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation x x x. As a result, PARADdid not give due course to the same. another counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, by the name of Atty.Willy G. Roxas, who represented himself as counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, filed a manifestationstating that he is representing TENANTS/FARMERS and alleged that they were 'bona fide' members of the [Kalayaan Development Cooperative] (KDC). Thereafter, he filed a Notice of Appeal on March 27,2000 stating that they received the Decision on March 14, 2000 and alleged that the Decision isagainst the law and jurisprudence. On May 31, 2001, Respondent Anastacio Revilla Jr., knowing thatthere was a monetary judgment by way of Disturbance Compensation granted to Tenants/Farmers,filed a 'Motion for Leave of Court to Allow Correction of Caption and Amendment of Judgment' Afterrealizing that his motion failed to give him beneficial monetary gain from the PARAD judgment, aPetition for Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and toQuash Alias Writ of Execution with Demolition plus Damages dated July 18, 2001 was filed byRespondent before the DARAB Central Office, Quezon City, notwithstanding the fact that this instantcase was appealed by another lawyer.

Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD

Investigating Commissioner Espina found respondent guilty of violating the attorney's oath and the

Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly, respondent had "maliciously concealed the defeat of his

clients in the case before the PARAD of Cavite and the higher courts," in order to secure a temporary

restraining order from the RTC of Imus, Cavite. As a result, he was able to delay the execution of the

provincial adjudicator's Decision dated November 15, 1999.

Moreover, Commissioner Espina opined that the charge that respondent had been engaged in the

unlawful practice of law was neither satisfactorily explained nor specifically denied by the latter. The

failure of respondent to do so led to the presumption that the allegation was true.

HELD:Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. Theyact as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the courts. Verily,the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to anyfalsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice. Moreover, theyare obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of  justice. Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide thus:"Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.'Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.'"