The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for representing conflicting interests and for deceitfully using the title “Judge” after being found guilty of grave misconduct. This decision underscores the high ethical standards required of lawyers, emphasizing the prohibition against representing opposing clients and the importance of honesty in professional conduct. The ruling serves as a stern warning that any breach of these ethical duties can lead to severe consequences, including the loss of the privilege to practice law. This case is a reminder to attorneys that their actions must always uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

The Fall From Grace: Attorney Disbarred for Ethical Breaches and Deceptive Practices

This case revolves around the actions of Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos, who faced disbarment proceedings due to allegations of representing conflicting interests and misusing the title “Judge.” The San Jose Homeowners Association Inc. (SJHAI) filed the initial complaint, asserting that Atty. Romanillos had previously served as their counsel before taking on cases that directly opposed their interests. This conflict of interest, coupled with his use of the title “Judge” despite a prior ruling against him, raised serious ethical concerns. The Supreme Court meticulously examined these allegations to determine whether Atty. Romanillos had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The question at hand was whether his actions warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the legal profession.

The core of the disbarment case against Atty. Romanillos stemmed from his representation of conflicting parties. Initially, he served as counsel for SJHAI in a dispute against Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) regarding a subdivision plan. However, he later represented Myrna and Antonio Montealegre, who sought SJHAI’s approval to construct a school on land purchased from Durano. This shift in representation created a clear conflict of interest, as he was now advising parties whose interests were adverse to his former client. Moreover, he acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez, who substituted for DCI in a case filed by SJHAI, further exacerbating the conflict.

Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests, stating that “a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure.” Atty. Romanillos failed to obtain such consent, thus violating this fundamental principle of legal ethics. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter, finding that Atty. Romanillos had indeed failed to observe candor and fairness in dealing with his clients. Despite an initial admonition, Atty. Romanillos continued to represent Lydia Durano-Rodriguez, leading to the second disbarment case.

In addition to the conflict of interest, Atty. Romanillos faced accusations of deceitful conduct for using the title “Judge” in his office letterhead, correspondences, and billboards. This was particularly problematic because he had previously been found guilty of grave and serious misconduct in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos. In that case, he was found guilty of illegal solicitation and receipt of P10,000.00 from a party litigant. The Court ruled:

Considering the foregoing, respondent Judge Roberto B. Romanillos is hereby found guilty of grave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and honesty. He deserves the supreme penalty of dismissal. However, respondent, in an obvious attempt to escape punishment for his misdeeds, tendered his resignation during the pendency of this case.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the use of titles such as “Justice” is reserved for incumbent and retired members of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan. By analogy, the title “Judge” should be reserved only for judges, incumbent and retired, and not for those dishonorably discharged from the service. Atty. Romanillos’s actions were seen as an attempt to mislead the public into believing he was still connected to the judiciary, a clear violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The IBP Board of Governors approved the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, finding Atty. Romanillos in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These rules prohibit lawyers from engaging in deceitful conduct and from using any misleading statement or claim regarding qualifications or legal services. The quasi-judicial notice he posted in the billboards referring to himself as a judge was deemed deceiving, further demonstrating his disregard for ethical standards.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Atty. Romanillos’s actions warranted disbarment. The Court emphasized that membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions, bestowed upon individuals of good moral character. Lawyers must act with honesty and integrity to promote public faith in the legal profession. Atty. Romanillos’s repeated infractions and disregard for ethical standards demonstrated that he was unfit to discharge the duties of his office and unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed in him as an officer of the court.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The Court concluded that Atty. Romanillos’s repeated violations, including representing conflicting interests and engaging in deceitful conduct, justified the imposition of the most severe disciplinary sanction. Disbarment was deemed necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and protect the public from further misconduct.

FAQs

What was the primary reason for Atty. Romanillos’s disbarment?	Atty. Romanillos was disbarred primarily for representing conflicting interests and for deceitfully using the title “Judge” despite a prior finding of grave misconduct.
What is the significance of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Rule 15.03 prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties involved, given after full disclosure, ensuring fairness and protecting client confidentiality.
What previous case affected the Supreme Court’s decision in this disbarment case?	The case of Zarate v. Judge Romanillos, where Atty. Romanillos was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct, influenced the Court’s decision, highlighting his prior ethical lapses.
Why was Atty. Romanillos’s use of the title “Judge” considered deceitful?	His use of the title was deceitful because he had been dishonorably discharged from the judiciary, and using the title misled the public into believing he was still a judge.
What is the role of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in disbarment cases?	The IBP investigates complaints against lawyers and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court, which has the ultimate authority to disbar or suspend attorneys.
What does the Revised Rules of Court say about disbarment?	Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court outlines the grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the lawyer’s oath.
Why is maintaining public trust important for lawyers?	Maintaining public trust is crucial because lawyers are officers of the court, and their conduct directly impacts the public’s perception of the legal system’s integrity and fairness.
What does it mean to be disbarred?	Disbarment is the most severe disciplinary action against a lawyer, resulting in the removal of their name from the Roll of Attorneys and the loss of their privilege to practice law.

The disbarment of Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos serves as a significant reminder of the stringent ethical standards that govern the legal profession. Attorneys must avoid conflicts of interest, act with honesty and candor, and uphold the integrity of the legal system. Failure to adhere to these standards can result in severe consequences, including the loss of the privilege to practice law, underscoring the importance of ethical conduct in maintaining the public’s trust and confidence in the legal profession.

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: SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. VS. ATTY. ROBERTO B. ROMANILLOS, A.C. No. 5580, June 15, 2005