The Supreme Court ruled that a law firm cannot continue to use the name of a disbarred lawyer in its firm name. Doing so constitutes indirect contempt of court. This decision reinforces the principle that a law firm’s name must accurately reflect the qualifications and standing of its members. The ruling protects the public from being misled into believing that a disbarred lawyer is still authorized to practice law.

Can a Law Firm Retain a Disbarred Partner’s Name? The Case of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat

The case of David Yu Kimteng vs. Atty. Walter T. Young arose from a dispute over the use of a disbarred lawyer’s name in a law firm. The petitioners, majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation, sought to cite the law firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and Judge Ofelia L. Calo in contempt of court. The central issue was whether the continued use of Anastacio Revilla, Jr.’s name in the firm name, after his disbarment, constituted contempt and violated ethical standards. The firm argued that retaining Revilla’s name was an act of charity and did not mislead the public.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which defines indirect contempt. This rule includes acts that impede or degrade the administration of justice. Additionally, the court considered Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits the use of false or misleading names in a firm name. The court distinguished between using the name of a deceased partner and that of a disbarred lawyer, emphasizing that while the former is permissible with proper indication, the latter can mislead the public.

SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing.— After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court referred to previous cases. In San Luis v. Pineda, the court established that the practice of law by a disbarred individual constitutes contempt. Similarly, in United States v. Ney, et al., an attorney was held liable for contempt for associating with a person not authorized to practice law. These cases underscore the importance of ensuring that only authorized individuals engage in legal practice.

Furthermore, the court addressed the argument that retaining a disbarred lawyer’s name is similar to including the names of deceased partners. The court clarified that Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the use of a deceased partner’s name with the condition that the firm indicates the partner’s deceased status. This ensures transparency and prevents public deception. In contrast, retaining a disbarred lawyer’s name could lead the public to believe the lawyer is still authorized to practice, which is misleading and unethical. The retention of Revilla’s name created an inaccurate impression, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court also considered the argument of “sentimental reasons” for retaining the disbarred lawyer’s name, but the court did not agree with this argument. The ethical and legal implications outweighed the sentimental value.

The Court also ruled on whether filing a disbarment complaint and a petition for contempt constitutes forum shopping. The Court explained that disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Disbarment proceedings are distinct from civil or criminal cases and aimed at maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. The power to discipline erring members of the bar lies with the Supreme Court. Therefore, filing both actions does not amount to forum shopping. The Supreme Court in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan:

The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is broader [than] the power to punish for contempt. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and non-lawyers, both in and out of court. Frequently, where the contemnor is a lawyer, the contumacious conduct also constitutes professional misconduct which calls into play the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court.

As a result of its analysis, the Supreme Court found Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat in contempt of court, fining them P30,000.00 each. The complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol was dismissed, recognizing his efforts to remove the disbarred lawyer’s name from pleadings he filed. The Court also ordered the complaint against Judge Ofelia L. Calo to be re-docketed as an administrative matter, addressing her error in allowing Atty. Young’s appearance under a non-existent firm name.

The Court also noted that the counsels were ordered to make the necessary amendments in relation to the use of the disbarred lawyer’s name including changes in their signage, notice of appearances, stationeries, and like material within a period of five (5) days from receipt.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a law firm could continue using the name of a disbarred lawyer in its firm name without being in contempt of court and violating ethical standards.
What is indirect contempt of court?	Indirect contempt involves acts that impede or degrade the administration of justice, as defined in Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
What does the Code of Professional Responsibility say about firm names?	Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be used in the choice of a firm name.
Is it permissible to use the name of a deceased partner in a law firm’s name?	Yes, the continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible, provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Why was the complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol dismissed?	The complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol was dismissed because he took the initiative to remove the disbarred lawyer’s name from the pleadings he filed in various courts.
What was the outcome for Judge Ofelia L. Calo?	The complaint against Judge Ofelia L. Calo was re-docketed as an administrative matter to address her error in allowing Atty. Young’s appearance under a non-existent firm name.
Does filing a disbarment complaint and a petition for contempt constitute forum shopping?	No, filing a disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and a petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping because disbarment proceedings are sui generis and distinct from civil or criminal cases.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat?	Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat were each fined P30,000.00 for using a disbarred lawyer’s name in their firm name.

This case clarifies the ethical responsibilities of law firms in maintaining accurate and transparent firm names. It underscores the importance of adhering to the Code of Professional Responsibility and avoiding any actions that could mislead the public. The decision serves as a reminder that the integrity of the legal profession is paramount, and all lawyers must uphold its standards.

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: DAVID YU KIMTENG, ET AL. VS. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ET AL., G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015