February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 7054 : February 02, 2010] CONRADO QUE, COMPLAINANT V. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., RESPONDENT:
[A.C. No. 7054 : February 02, 2010]
CONRADO QUE, COMPLAINANT V. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., RESPONDENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 2, 2010
A.C. No. 7054 - CONRADO QUE, complainant v. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., respondent.
RESOLUTION
This is an Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (Atty. Revilla), praying that the decision dated December 4, 2009 of the Court disbarring him from the practice of law be reconsidered on the ground of equity, as the penalty of disbarment is severe, harsh and excessive and not commensurate to the infraction he committed in good faith. He also pleads leniency and compassion, considering that he is the sole breadwinner of his family with a sick and bedridden mother and a sick sister to support; a financial benefactor of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Lucena City; and an indigent patient at the Heart Center.
We resolve to deny the motion.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.[1] Hence, the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it.[2]
It is not amiss to note that as early as the first administrative case of Atty. Revilla before us, Plus Builders, Inc., et.al v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr., the Court has punished Atty. Revilla, among others, "for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court and misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment." In the 2006 decision in Plus Builders, the Court imposed upon Atty. Revilla a suspension for two (2) years. On his motion for reconsideration, which was based on arguments similar to the ones that are now presently raised, the Court exercised judicial leniency and reduced the penalty of suspension to six (6) months. In both instances, Atty. Revilla was sufficiently warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
From the established infractions committed by Atty. Revilla in the case at bar, it is clear that he did not heed the Court's warning. Additionally, and as Atty, Revilla admitted, we take note that another disbarment case has been filed against him by Atty. Cesar Uy (counsel of the complainant), which case is now pending before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
With these considerations in mind, the Court can no longer accept the plea for equity, leniency and compassion Atty. Revilla now submits. He must now be held fully accountable to the consequences of his professional misconduct. As we stated in the decision, he did not learn any lesson from his past experiences and has since then exhibited traits of incorrigibility, aptly demonstrated by his failure to heed the Court's warning in Plus Builders. His undesirable traits have no place in the legal profession and in the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.'s Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit."
A.C. No. 7054 - CONRADO QUE, complainant v. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., respondent.
RESOLUTION
This is an Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (Atty. Revilla), praying that the decision dated December 4, 2009 of the Court disbarring him from the practice of law be reconsidered on the ground of equity, as the penalty of disbarment is severe, harsh and excessive and not commensurate to the infraction he committed in good faith. He also pleads leniency and compassion, considering that he is the sole breadwinner of his family with a sick and bedridden mother and a sick sister to support; a financial benefactor of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Lucena City; and an indigent patient at the Heart Center.
We resolve to deny the motion.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.[1] Hence, the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it.[2]
It is not amiss to note that as early as the first administrative case of Atty. Revilla before us, Plus Builders, Inc., et.al v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr., the Court has punished Atty. Revilla, among others, "for committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court and misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment." In the 2006 decision in Plus Builders, the Court imposed upon Atty. Revilla a suspension for two (2) years. On his motion for reconsideration, which was based on arguments similar to the ones that are now presently raised, the Court exercised judicial leniency and reduced the penalty of suspension to six (6) months. In both instances, Atty. Revilla was sufficiently warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
From the established infractions committed by Atty. Revilla in the case at bar, it is clear that he did not heed the Court's warning. Additionally, and as Atty, Revilla admitted, we take note that another disbarment case has been filed against him by Atty. Cesar Uy (counsel of the complainant), which case is now pending before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
With these considerations in mind, the Court can no longer accept the plea for equity, leniency and compassion Atty. Revilla now submits. He must now be held fully accountable to the consequences of his professional misconduct. As we stated in the decision, he did not learn any lesson from his past experiences and has since then exhibited traits of incorrigibility, aptly demonstrated by his failure to heed the Court's warning in Plus Builders. His undesirable traits have no place in the legal profession and in the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.'s Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Kupers v. Atty. Hontanosas, A.C. No. 5704, May 8, 2009.
[2] Id.