Kimteng vs. Young

The continued use of a disbarred lawyer's name in a law firm's name constitutes indirect contempt of court under Rule 71, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court and violates Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because it misleads the public into believing the disbarred lawyer remains authorized to practice law; this is distinct from the permissible use of a deceased partner's name provided the firm indicates the partner is deceased.

Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. was disbarred by the Supreme Court En Banc in December 2009 in A.C. No. 7054 entitled Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr. David Yu Kimteng, et al. are the majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation, which the Supreme Court ordered liquidated in 2011 in Majority Stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation v. Lim, et al. The liquidation proceedings were raffled to Regional Trial Court Branch 211 in Mandaluyong City, presided by Judge Ofelia L. Calo. Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are partners in the law firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and entered their appearance as counsel for the liquidator in the proceedings.

• Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. was disbarred by the Supreme Court En Banc in December 2009 in A.C. No. 7054 entitled Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.
• Petitioners are majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation, which the Supreme Court ordered liquidated in 2011.
• The liquidation proceedings were raffled to Branch 211 of the Regional Trial Court in Mandaluyong City, presided by Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
• Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are partners in the law firm Young Revilla Gambol & Magat.
• The firm entered its appearance in the liquidation proceedings as counsel for the liquidator.
• Petitioners filed an Opposition to the firm's appearance on the ground that Revilla had been disbarred in 2009.
• The firm filed a Reply stating they opted to retain Revilla's name in the firm name even after disbarment, serving as an act of charity and for sentimental reasons.
• Judge Calo overruled the opposition but allowed Atty. Young's appearance only under the "Young Law Firm," which does not exist, rather than under Young Revilla Gambol & Magat.
• Atty. Gambol claimed that he removed Revilla's name from the pleadings he filed in several courts on his own initiative.
• Petitioners also filed a disbarment complaint against the lawyers before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

• Cited San Luis v. Pineda and United States v. Ney, et al. to support the argument that the use of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is tantamount to contempt of court.
• Argued that Judge Calo's order allowing appearance under the non-existent "Young Law Firm" violates the proscription against participation of disbarred lawyers.
• Contended that filing the contempt petition does not constitute forum shopping because contempt liability is separate from disciplinary action, and disbarment proceedings are confidential under Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court.

• Atty. Young and Atty. Magat argued they maintained Revilla's name for sentimental reasons and fraternal expression, not to deceive the public, and that it does not enhance the firm's standing or give added value.
• Claimed petitioners were motivated by resentment over the liquidator selection and were blocking creditors' relief.
• Raised forum shopping issue due to pending disbarment complaint before the IBP.
• Atty. Gambol argued he is a junior member with no authority to decide firm name changes, and that he removed Revilla's name from pleadings he filed.
• Claimed Revilla no longer practiced law after disbarment.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the filing of the petition constitutes forum shopping given the pendency of a disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
  • Whether contempt is the proper remedy against Judge Calo for her order allowing appearance under a non-existent firm name.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are in contempt for continuing to use respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.'s name in their firm name after his disbarment.
  • Whether the lawyers are in contempt for deliberately allowing a disbarred lawyer to engage in the practice of law.
  • Whether respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is in contempt for continuing to practice law despite disbarment.
  • Whether respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is in contempt for holding that Atty. Young could appear under the non-existent "Young Law Firm."

• Procedural:
  • No forum shopping exists because a petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a complaint for disbarment are different remedies with different purposes; disbarment proceedings are sui generis, confidential, and intended to cleanse the profession, while contempt is punitive for acts disrespecting the court. The elements of forum shopping (identity of parties, rights/relief, res judicata) are absent.
  • Contempt is not the proper remedy against Judge Calo; errors in judgment should first be addressed through ordinary judicial remedies (motion for reconsideration, appeal) or extraordinary remedies (certiorari, prohibition) before resorting to administrative or disciplinary actions.
• Substantive:
  • Atty. Young and Atty. Magat are guilty of indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(e) for using a disbarred lawyer's name in their firm name, which violates Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This is distinguishable from using a deceased partner's name (which is allowed with indication of death). The retention misleads the public into believing the disbarred lawyer remains authorized to practice. They were fined P30,000.00 each.
  • Atty. Gambol is not liable because he demonstrated good faith by removing Revilla's name from pleadings he filed.
  • The complaint against Revilla was not ruled upon because he was not served copies of the petition and pleadings.
  • The complaint against Judge Calo was re-docketed as an administrative matter.

• Indirect Contempt through Misleading Firm Names — Under Rule 71, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, assuming to be an attorney without authority constitutes indirect contempt. Using a disbarred lawyer's name in a firm name violates Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibition on false, misleading, or assumed names) and constitutes indirect contempt because it misleads the public into believing the disbarred lawyer retains authority to practice.
• Distinction Between Deceased and Disbarred Partners in Firm Names — While Canon 3, Rule 3.02 permits the continued use of a deceased partner's name provided the firm indicates the partner is deceased, a disbarred lawyer's name must be removed because disbarment strips the lawyer of the privilege to practice, creating a risk of public deception unlike the use of a deceased partner's name.
• Sui Generis Nature of Disbarment Proceedings — Disbarment proceedings are unique, confidential under Rule 139-B, Section 18, and intended to protect the public by cleansing the legal profession. They are distinct from contempt proceedings, and the IBP's findings are merely recommendatory, with the Supreme Court retaining exclusive disciplinary authority.
• Forum Shopping — Requires identity of parties, identity of rights/relief prayed for based on the same facts, and res judicata effect. Filing both disbarment and contempt actions based on the same acts does not constitute forum shopping because the nature, purpose, and remedies differ.
• Remedies Against Judicial Errors — Errors by judges in the exercise of jurisdiction should first be addressed through ordinary judicial remedies (motion for reconsideration, appeal) or extraordinary writs (certiorari, prohibition) before resorting to administrative or disciplinary actions.

• "A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer who appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits indirect contempt of court." — Opening statement of the decision.
• "Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is different from using a deceased partner's name in the firm name." — Explaining the distinction between permissible use of deceased partners' names and prohibited use of disbarred lawyers' names.
• "The retention of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may mislead the public into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law." — Rationale for prohibiting the practice.
• "The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is broader [than] the power to punish for contempt." — Explaining the relationship between contempt and disciplinary powers.

• San Luis v. Pineda, 121 Phil. 419 (1965) — Cited for the rule that practice of law by a disbarred lawyer constitutes contempt of court.
• United States v. Ney, et al., 8 Phil. 146 (1907) — Cited for the principle that using the name of a person not authorized to practice law constitutes contempt of court.
• Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378 (2004) — Applied to establish that a lawyer who allows a non-member to misrepresent himself as a lawyer violates Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo" and In the matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes", 180 Phil. 250 (1979) — Distinguished; these cases involved deceased partners and established that using deceased partners' names may mislead the public, but Canon 3, Rule 3.02 now allows it with proper indication.
• Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr., 622 Phil. 1 (2009) — The disbarment case against Revilla which formed the basis of the contempt petition.
• Maylas, Jr. v. Judge Sese, 529 Phil. 594 (2006) — Cited to explain that contempt is not the proper remedy against judges; administrative or judicial remedies must first be exhausted.
• Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 248 Phil. 542 (1988) — Cited to distinguish between the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers and its contempt power.

• Rule 71, Section 3(e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Defines indirect contempt as assuming to be an attorney or acting as such without authority.
• Rule 71, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides penalties for indirect contempt (fine not exceeding P30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both).
• Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits false, misleading or assumed names in firm names; allows continued use of deceased partner's name provided the firm indicates said partner is deceased.
• Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court — Provides that proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.
• Article 1815 of the Civil Code — States that partners in a partnership should be living persons who can be subjected to liability.
• Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court En Banc power to discipline judges of lower courts.
• Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court — Provides that administrative functions include disciplinary matters involving judges.