7/27/2019 Pale 51 and 65

1/6

Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo Garin v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr.

A.C. No. 7056

September 13, 2006

Facts:

Petitioners filed a disbarment case before the IBP against herein respondent for committing awillful and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure and processes todelay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice oflaw.

Plus Builders Inc. filed before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) of DAR a caseagainst against Leopoldo De Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido De Guzman, Apolonio Ilas andGloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco; Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez andMaria Esguerra, et al; hereinafter called [tenants/farmers]. The PARAD ruled in favor ofpetitioner and against the tenants/farmers.

Respondent filed a Petition for Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Issuance of TRO and toQuash Alias Writ of Execution with Demolition plus Damages before the DARAB Central Officenotwithstanding the fact that this case was appealed by another lawyer (Atty. Willy Roxas).

The DARAB Central Office issued a TRO plus an extension of another TRO.

Respondent also filed an Indirect Contempt case against Plus Builders Inc. and their Board ofDirectors, Edgardo Garcia and [its] counsel Atty. Leopoldo S. Gonzalez before the same Office.

The CA held that the orders of the DARAB are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The SCdismissed the case.

Respondent then filed a verified Action to Quiet Title before the RTC of Imus, Cavite prayingfor a TRO to stop the enforcement of the Decisions of the higher courts to implement thePARAD.

Respondent signed his pleading under a group of non-lawyers joining him in the practice of lawas [KDC] LEGAL SERVICES, LAW OFFICERS AND ASSOCIATES which included KDC aslaw partners in violation of the Rules on the practice of law with non-lawyers.

Under the Retainership Contract submitted by Respondent before the PARAD, it was

specifically mentioned that legal fees were to be collected as counsel on record for thecooperative and respondent. Therefore, this contract was effectively used [for] unlawfulsolicitation of clients in the practice of law with non-lawyers, being the cooperative (KDC) tobecome counsel on record.

The RTC quashed the earlier issued TRO and dismissed the case on the ground of res judicatabecause the Court of Appeals ruled that, the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator of DAR hasalready become final and that, prescription does not run against registered land.

7/27/2019 Pale 51 and 65

2/6

IBP: Investigating Commissioner Espina found respondent guilty of violating the attorneys oathand 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 fromthe RTC. As a result, he was able to delay the execution of theprovincial adjudicatorsDecision.

The IBP recommended a suspension of two years.

Issue: WON the respondent engaged in the unlawful practice of law

Held:

The SC agreed with the IBP.

Good faith, fairness and candor constitute the essence of membership in the legalprofession. Thus, while lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their client, they must never abusetheir right of recourse to the courts by arguing a case that has repeatedly been rejected. Neithershould they use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass a party or to misusejudicial processes. These acts constitute serious transgression of their professional oath.

In the present case, respondent claims good faith in pursuing the cause of his clients. Therecords show, however, that his course of legal action was obviously a stratagem. It was meant todelay unduly the execution of the provincial adjudicators Decision.

It must be noted that when the Court of Appeals and the SC upheld the PARADsDecision, respondent resorted to a different forum to pursue his clients lost cause. In thedisturbance compensation case, he represented his clients as tenants and acknowledged thatcomplainants were the owners of the subject land. In the action to quiet title, however, heconveniently repudiated his previous admission by falsely alleging that his clients were adversepossessors claiming bona fide ownership. Consequently, he was able to obtain a temporaryrestraining order preventing the execution of the provincial adjudicators Decision.

Clearly, he was shielding his clients from the Order of execution. Contrary to his laterclaim of ownership of the land, he cannot feign ignorance of his previous admission of a tenancyrelationship existing between his clients and complainants, as correctly observed by IBPCommissioner Espina.

The propensity of respondent for doublespeak was also revealed in his declaration thathis clients were pauper litigants. His prayer for an exemption to pay court fees, on the groundthat they did not have sufficient income, was granted by the trial court. Earlier, however, headmitted that they had engaged the services of his legal office for a fee of P20,000, in additionto P2,500 per appearance in court. Also, in the action to quiet title, he even alleged that they

7/27/2019 Pale 51 and 65

3/6

were willing to post a bond to answer for damages, in the event that the court ruled in favor ofthe defendants. These facts contravene his claim that his clients could not afford to pay theappropriate court fees.

Moreover, the SC agreed with the finding of IBP Commissioner Espina that the silence or failure

of respondent to challenge the allegation that he allowed non-lawyers to engage in theunauthorized practice of law may be deemed an admission of the truth of the accusation. Wenote that complainants successfully substantiated their claim that respondent, who held himselfout as a law partner of the KDC Legal Services, Law Offices and Associates, was rendering

legal services together with persons not licensed to practice law. His silence on this accusation isdeemed an admission, especially because he had every chance to deny it.

The SC held that the respondent be suspended for two years.

Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo Garin v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr.

A.C. No. 7056

February 11, 2009

Facts:

This is a motion for reconsideration of the 2006 decision of the court finding respondent guilty ofgross misconduct for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusingcourt procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.

On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite

(PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmersLeopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria MartirezSiongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, whowere the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.

The PARAD found that respondents clients were mere tenants and not rightful

possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the SupremeCourt, with this Court sustaining complainants rights over the land. Continuing to pursue hisclients 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 ofseveral 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 theunauthorized practice of lawholding 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 hetook were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision, but were based onhis serious study, research and experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years and onthe facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action

7/27/2019 Pale 51 and 65

4/6

he took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests ofLeopoldo de Guzman, et. al. He stresses that he was not the original lawyer in this case.

Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for unauthorized practice of law, hehumbly submits that there was actually no sufficient evidence to prove the same or did he fail todispute this, contrary to the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He wascounsel of Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. only and not of the cooperative Kalayaan DevelopmentCooperative (KDC). He was just holding his office in this cooperative, together with Attys.Dominador Ferrer, Efren Ambrocio, the late Alfredo Caloico and Marciano Villavert. He signedthe retainer agreement with Atty. Dominador to formalize their lawyer-client relationship, andthe complainants were fully aware of such arrangement.

Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action hetook in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration,pardon and forgiveness. He reiterates that he does not deserve the penalty of two yearssuspension, considering that the complaint fails to show him wanting in character, honesty, andprobity; in fact, he has been a member of the bar for more than 20 years, served as former

president of the IBP Marinduque Chapter, a legal aid lawyer of IBP Quezon City handlingdetention prisoners andpro bono cases, and is also a member of the Couples for Christ, and hashad strict training in the law school he graduated from and the law offices he worked with. He isthe sole breadwinner in the family with a wife who is jobless, four (4) children who are inschool, a mother who is bedridden and a sick sister to support. The familys only source ofincome is respondents private practice of law, a work he has been engaged in for more thantwenty-five (25) years up to the present.

Held:

Violations of canons cannot be countenanced. However, the Court also knows how to showcompassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in thepresence of mitigating factors, such as the respondents length of service, acknowledgment of hisor her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitableconsiderations, and respondents advanced age, among other things, which have varyingsignificance in the Courts determination of the imposable penalty. Thus, after a carefulconsideration of herein respondents motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment ofhis misfeasance, we are persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards him. We find thesuspension of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this case .

Reddi vs. Sebrio Jr.; Dishonesty

A.C. No. 7027 January 30, 2009

Facts:

Complainant Tanu Reddi, an American citizen of Indian descent and a practicing endodontist[dentist] in New York, seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. forallegedly deceiving her into giving him a total of US $ 3,000,000 for the purpose of, among other

http://sophialegis.weebly.com/9/post/2013/06/reddi-vs-sebrio-jr-dishonesty.htmlhttp://sophialegis.weebly.com/9/post/2013/06/reddi-vs-sebrio-jr-dishonesty.html

7/27/2019 Pale 51 and 65

5/6

things, purchasing several real estate properties for resale.

Inspired by the charitable works of her parents, complainant decided to build a hospital in thePhilippines. However she needed more revenue to finance the said undertaking. Through theadvice of her assistant Immaculada Luistro, complainant ventured into the real estate in the

Philippines. It through this business hat he came to know and ask for legal advice fromrespondent.Respondent advised that complainant cannot own real estate in the Philippines since she is an

alien, thus the remedy is to put up a corporation, and this corporation will be the one who willacquire the land. Three corporations then were created. Through the instance of respondent andfinanced by complainants, several lots were purchased. However, complainant was unaware thatthe transactions [sale of several lands] she had entered into were all bogus, since the sellers werenot the real owners of the land. This fact was known to the respondent since he is the one whoarranged the transactions.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty, hence violating the Lawyer's Oath andCode of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:Yes, the commissioner who investigated the case of respondent [result of the investigation was

adopted by the Supreme Court] found respondent to have committed fraudulent acts whichconstitute violations of the lawyers oath and numerous provisions of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR). He engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he offeredproperties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that complainant was dealing with thetrue owners thereof.

The court found that respondents dishonest and deceitful conduct with respect to the intendedtransactions, real property acquisitions which turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently established.

Explained the court, "to reiterate, by his own admission, respondent received a total ofUS$544,828 from complainant, which he could not properly account for. The orchestratedmanner in which he carried out his fraudulent scheme, in connivance with other persons, and bytaking advantage of complainants naivete in the workings of the real estate business in thePhilippines, depict a man whose character falls way, way short of the exacting standards requiredof him as a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Thus, respondent is no longer fit toremain as such.

The court in admonition reiterates that if the practice of law, however, is to remain anhonorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only masterits tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Therequirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the generalpublic is concerned, than the possession of legal learning."

WHEREFORE, respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is DISBARRED, and his name is

7/27/2019 Pale 51 and 65

6/6

ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED TO RETURN tocomplainant the amount of US$544,828.