In Gene M. Domingo v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., the Supreme Court addressed the disciplinary action against a disbarred lawyer, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., for misconduct committed before his disbarment. Despite already being disbarred in a prior case, the Court found Revilla guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for deceiving a client, Gene Domingo, inducing him to pay substantial fees under false pretenses of legal services rendered. The Court underscored its continuing jurisdiction over acts of misconduct committed by lawyers while they were still members of the bar, imposing a fine of P100,000.00 as a sanction for his unethical behavior. This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers, even after disbarment, are accountable for actions that undermine the integrity of the legal profession, ensuring that the standards of honesty and ethical conduct are upheld.

The Case of the Misled Client: Can a Disbarred Lawyer Be Further Disciplined?

Gene Domingo, an American citizen of Filipino descent, sought legal assistance from Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. in 2000 for cases against his cousin and settlement of his mother’s estate. Domingo alleged that Revilla misrepresented his association with the law firm of Agabin Verzola Hermoso Layaoen & De Castro, promising to handle the cases effectively. Trusting Revilla’s assurances, Domingo paid an initial amount of P80,000.00. However, as the legal proceedings allegedly progressed, Revilla requested additional funds, totaling P433,002.61, for various expenses, including payments to judges and tax-related fees. Domingo later discovered that Revilla had not filed the annulment of adoption case as claimed, and none of his representations were truthful, leading to a complaint for disbarment against Revilla for violations of Canons 1, 2, 13, 15 & 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The respondent, in his defense, denied the accusations and claimed that the complainant insisted on pursuing a difficult case. He also stated that the complainant made unreasonable demands, like having an immediate decision from the court in his favor. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Revilla guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a reprimand and restitution of P513,000.00. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. However, the complainant sought a more severe penalty, leading to the Supreme Court’s review of the case. The Supreme Court accepted the findings of the IBP but modified the recommended penalty, emphasizing that Revilla’s conduct constituted deliberate defraudation rather than mere negligence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent’s actions constituted dishonesty and deceit, violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule states, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The Court noted several instances of Revilla’s misconduct, including misleading the complainant about his law firm, accepting a case unlikely to succeed, and demanding money without progressing the case. The Court also highlighted that Revilla filed the annulment case only after receiving a demand letter from the complainant threatening administrative charges. According to Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” The Court stated that the mere failure of a lawyer to perform their obligations to a client is a violation.

The Court further emphasized that the fiduciary relationship between an attorney and client requires the lawyer to promptly account for all funds received. The respondent’s failure to abide by this mandate and his breach of Canon 15, which requires candor, fairness, and loyalty in dealings with clients, were also noted. In their conversations, the respondent told the complainant that the judge handling the case would rule in their favor only if he would be given 10% of the value of the property at Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque, and that the handling judge consequently agreed on the fee of P200,000.00 but needed an additional P50,000.00 “for the boys” in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. By implying that he could influence public officials and tribunals, the respondent violated Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 15.06 states, “A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.” Rule 15.07 adds, “A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and principles of fairness.”

In light of these violations, the Supreme Court found that Revilla’s conduct demonstrated his unworthiness to remain a member of the legal profession. However, given that Revilla had already been disbarred in a previous case, Que v. Revilla, Jr., the Court could not impose disbarment again. In Que v. Revilla, Jr., the Court disbarred him from the Legal Profession upon finding him guilty of violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Despite the prior disbarment, the Court asserted its jurisdiction over Revilla’s misconduct, emphasizing that administrative cases against lawyers aim to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession. The Court cited Rivera v. Corral, stating that the purpose of these cases is “not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers.”

The Court acknowledged Revilla’s submission of an amicable settlement with Domingo, wherein he had repaid P650,000.00. However, the Court clarified that this settlement did not warrant the dismissal of the charges against him. Professional responsibilities are distinct from other obligations, and the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, as stated in Rafols, Jr. v. Barrios, Jr. The voluntary restitution by the respondent herein of the amount received in the course of the professional engagement, even if it would not lift the sanction meted on him, manifested remorse of a degree on his part for his wrongdoing, and was mitigating in his favor.

The Court also considered mitigating circumstances in Revilla’s case, including his initial candor with Domingo about the complexities of the case, his eventual restitution of the money, and his pleas for judicial clemency, backed by claims of health issues and involvement in Christian and charity work. While not absolving him of his misconduct, the Court deemed perpetual disqualification too severe, balancing the need to correct offenders with the possibility of future reinstatement. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed a fine of P100,000.00, underscoring its authority to discipline members of the legal profession, even after disbarment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a disbarred lawyer could be sanctioned for misconduct committed before the disbarment and whether settling the financial aspect of the misconduct warrants dismissal of the administrative case.
What violations did Atty. Revilla commit?	Atty. Revilla violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including dishonesty, misrepresentation, and failure to provide competent legal service.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Revilla guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed a fine of P100,000.00, despite his prior disbarment.
Why couldn’t Atty. Revilla be disbarred again?	The Supreme Court cannot impose double or multiple disbarments; Atty. Revilla was already disbarred in a prior case, A.C. No. 7054.
Did the amicable settlement affect the Court’s decision?	No, the amicable settlement did not warrant the dismissal of the charges because professional responsibilities are distinct from other obligations.
What is the significance of Rule 1.01 of the CPR?	Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
What mitigating circumstances did the Court consider?	The Court considered Atty. Revilla’s initial candor, eventual restitution of the money, pleas for clemency, health issues, and charity work as mitigating factors.
What is the purpose of administrative cases against lawyers?	Administrative cases against lawyers aim to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession by disciplining misconduct and ensuring ethical standards.
What is the effect of the fine on Atty. Revilla?	The fine of P100,000.00 serves as a sanction for his unethical conduct and a warning to adhere to the standards of the legal profession, with the possibility of eventual reinstatement.

This case serves as a stern reminder to all members of the Bar that ethical conduct and integrity are paramount. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that lawyers are continuously accountable for their actions, irrespective of their current standing in the legal profession, and that violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility will be met with appropriate sanctions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: GENE M. DOMINGO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018