Que vs. Revilla

A lawyer who misuses procedural remedies to delay execution of final judgments, commits deliberate falsehood, maligns a fellow lawyer without basis, and appears without authority violates the Lawyer's Oath, Canons 8, 10, 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and merits disbarment, especially upon repetition after a prior suspension for similar misconduct.

Conrado Que and his siblings were the plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case concerning property in Quezon City, while the defendants were squatters who were members of the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC). KDC handled pro bono cases for the underprivileged, homeless, and marginalized in Metro Manila. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr., a KDC member, took over the defense after the death of the defendants' former counsel, the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico.

Conrado Que and his siblings obtained favorable final judgments against Revilla's clients in an unlawful detainer case, docketed as Civil Case No. 38-20262 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City and, on appeal, as Appealed Case No. 99-38199 before the Regional Trial Court. Revilla, who had taken over from the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico as counsel for the defendant-squatters, sought to prevent execution of those judgments through successive collateral actions involving the same property and parties.

First, Revilla filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53892, assailing the MeTC and RTC judgments for alleged lack of jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals dismissed it for failure to demonstrate lack of jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that dismissal, he again raised lack of jurisdiction in a petition for annulment of judgment before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-45556, with ancillary prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which was dismissed on motion to dismiss. He then successively filed two petitions for annulment of Que's title, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-38780 and Civil Case No. Q-02-46885, both dismissed for lack of legal personality of the plaintiffs. After those dismissals, he filed a petition for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction to enjoin Que and his siblings from exercising rights over the same property, on the theory that the title was null because the property was forest land. In four of these petitions he persistently sought injunctive relief to stop execution.

According to the findings below, the petitions were accompanied by misrepresentations. In the petition for annulment of judgment, Revilla pleaded extrinsic fraud in its last paragraph, alleging that petitioners' counsel deliberately neglected the proper remedy after denial of reconsideration and corruptly sold out their interests by conniving with the adverse party's attorney, yet in paragraph 35 alleged that no second motion for reconsideration, new trial, or CA petition was filed because he believed the MeTC and RTC decisions were null and void. In the second petition for annulment of title, he requested representation by the Solicitor General, impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as plaintiff without its consent, and alone signed the amended petition as counsel for the plaintiffs. In the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the annulment-of-judgment petition, he asserted that at the June 28, 2002 hearing, after argument on the pending incident, the presiding judge in open court denied the motion to dismiss and directed defense counsel to answer; the records showed the June 28, 2002 setting was for his application for temporary restraining order, held in abeyance pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, and the stenographic notes and minutes did not support his version. Despite knowledge of the falsity, he induced his squatter-clients to execute affidavits supporting his account.

The record likewise showed appearances without authority. The annulment-of-judgment petition was filed for 49 individuals, of whom 31 gave consent while 15 did not, three of the latter being already deceased. The amended annulment-of-title complaint was signed by Revilla for both his clients and the Republic. An additional allegation that he represented 52 litigants without authority in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 was not sustained by the investigating commissioner.

Que thereafter filed the present disbarment complaint. Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan found all charges meritorious except the charge concerning the 52 litigants, noting the unnecessary use of remedies to forestall execution, prohibited forum-shopping, dishonesty toward the court, attacks on Atty. Catolico and the presiding judge, and unauthorized appearances. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report, initially recommending two years' suspension, later reduced to one year on reconsideration.

• Abuse of Court Remedies: Petitioner argued that respondent abused remedies by filing a CA petition for certiorari, two RTC petitions for annulment of title, an RTC petition for annulment of judgment, and an RTC petition for declaratory relief to assail final MeTC and RTC unlawful detainer judgments, repeatedly raising already-rejected lack of jurisdiction and attacks on complainant's titles.
• Forum-Shopping: Petitioner maintained that the subject cases were filed to impede, obstruct, and frustrate execution of the MeTC and RTC judgments for respondent's personal gain and to defeat complainant and his siblings' right to execute.
• Lack of Candor and Disrespect: Petitioner argued that respondent resorted to falsehood and deception, particularly by fabricating in the motion for reconsideration an imaginary open-court order denying the motion to dismiss, to cover lack of preparation, and by deceiving his squatter-clients into supporting the falsehood.
• Maligning Prior Counsel: Petitioner argued that respondent willfully and falsely maligned the late Atty. Catolico, the clients' previous counsel.
• Unauthorized Appearances: Petitioner argued that respondent deliberately appeared without authority for 15 litigants, three deceased, in the annulment-of-judgment petition; appeared as counsel for the Republic without authority in the second annulment-of-title petition; and represented 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 without authority.

• Good Faith and Protection of Clients: Respondent maintained that he acted sincerely, honestly, and in good faith to protect his clients' property interests, consistent with his sworn duty to uphold justice and defend clients, and committed no illegal, unlawful, unjust, wrongful, or immoral acts.
• Merits and Legal Strategy: Respondent argued that the petitions rested on valid grounds — lack of MeTC and RTC jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud by the late Atty. Catolico, extrinsic fraud by complainant and family, and discovery that the property was forest land not belonging to complainant — and that annulment of judgment and declaratory relief were parts of his legal strategy.
• Hearing Account: Respondent maintained that his allegations about the June 28, 2002 proceedings were based on his observations and notes of what the presiding judge dictated in open court.
• Authority and Inadvertence: Respondent denied unauthorized appearances, claiming the 52 litigants were impleaded by inadvertence and immediately dropped; that signatures of a majority (31 of 49) sufficed for the non-forum-shopping certification; and that he did not claim to be sole representative of the Republic, as the petition merely requested the Solicitor General to represent his clients.
• Motive and Forum-Shopping Defense: Respondent argued that the complaint violated the rule on forum-shopping because the same subject cases were involved in CBD Case No. 03-1099 filed by complainant's counsel Atty. Cesar P. Uy, and that the case was filed to harass, ridicule, and defame him and indirectly harass his marginalized KDC clients, driven by Atty. Uy's axe to grind.

• Abuse of Court Processes: Whether respondent abused court procedures and processes to shield his clients from execution of the final MeTC and RTC unlawful detainer judgments.
• Multiple Actions and Forum-Shopping: Whether respondent's filing of successive petitions involving the same property and parties constituted filing multiple actions and prohibited forum-shopping.
• Falsehood and Candor to the Court: Whether respondent committed willful, intentional, and deliberate falsehood before the courts in violation of his duty of candor, fairness, and good faith.
• Maligning Fellow Lawyer: Whether respondent violated Canon 8 by unfairly maligning the late Atty. Catolico without factual basis.
• Unauthorized Appearances: Whether respondent twice represented parties without proper authorization in the annulment-of-judgment petition and the second annulment-of-title complaint.
• Defenses and Penalty: Whether respondent's defenses of good faith, legal strategy, and improper motive excuse liability, and what penalty should be imposed.

• Abuse of Court Processes: Yes. Repeated attempts to avoid enforcement of final judgments went beyond legitimate defense and misused procedural rules to thwart speedy administration of justice, violating Rule 10.03, Canon 10.
• Multiple Actions and Forum-Shopping: Yes. Successive petitions over the same property and parties to secure a favorable forum and prevent execution violated Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12, and the rule against forum-shopping.
• Falsehood and Candor to the Court: Yes. Conflicting extrinsic-fraud theories, circumvention of reversion rules, and misrepresentation of the June 28, 2002 hearing violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Rule 19.01, Canon 19, and Section 20(d), Rule 138.
• Maligning Fellow Lawyer: Yes. Imputation of deliberate neglect, corrupt motives, and connivance to deceased counsel without showing factual basis violated Canon 8.
• Unauthorized Appearances: Yes. Appearing for 15 non-consenting litigants and impleading and signing for the Republic without authority violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138.
• Defenses and Penalty: No. Bad faith was deduced from misrepresentations and scattershot recourses; complainant's motive is irrelevant in sui generis disbarment proceedings, and disbarment, not suspension, was imposed due to multiple violations, incorrigibility, and prior similar suspension.

• Abuse of Court Processes: The undisputed filing sequence established serious misconduct. After CA dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 53892 for failure to show MeTC lack of jurisdiction, respondent re-litigated jurisdiction in Civil Case No. Q-01-45556, filed Civil Case No. Q-99-38780 and Civil Case No. Q-02-46885 to annul title (both dismissed for lack of legal personality), then sought declaratory relief and injunction based on alleged forest-land nullity. Persistent injunctive applications in four petitions revealed an objective of preventing execution. Such uncalled-for measures to avoid enforcement of final judgments misused procedural rules to obstruct justice to the prejudice of the winning parties, contrary to the obligation to observe procedure and not misuse it to defeat justice.
• Multiple Actions and Forum-Shopping: While certiorari to question jurisdiction may have been procedurally legitimate but substantively erroneous, the subsequent petitions involving the same property and parties demonstrated forum-seeking and an obvious intent to block execution long after finality, particularly the annulment-of-judgment and declaratory-relief petitions. Filing multiple actions to attain the same objective degrades administration of justice, disrupts orderly procedure, and congests dockets, sustaining liability under Rules 12.02 and 12.04 and the forum-shopping prohibition.
• Falsehood and Candor to the Court: Fabrication was shown in three respects. The annulment petition simultaneously charged prior counsel with corrupt sell-out and connivance while asserting no further remedy was pursued because the judgments were void ab initio — conflicting claims supporting annulment and attacking a colleague. The second annulment-of-title petition sought to circumvent the rule that only the Solicitor General may commence reversion, by impleading the Republic without consent and having respondent alone sign as plaintiffs' counsel, forcing unwanted litigation. The reconsideration motion falsely claimed an open-court denial of the motion to dismiss on June 28, 2002, when that date concerned the restraining-order application held in abeyance, as confirmed by transcripts and minutes; respondent even procured client affidavits to support the falsehood. As officer of the court, his duty of candor prevails over zeal for clients, and only fair, honest, non-frivolous means may be employed.
• Maligning Fellow Lawyer: Liability attached because respondent, by his own admission participating only after Atty. Catolico's death, failed to show how he learned of the alleged deliberate neglect, corrupt sell-out, and connivance, while simultaneously justifying inaction on appeal by his own belief of nullity. Imputing wrongdoing without factual basis to one unable to defend himself was unfair and discourteous toward a professional colleague.
• Unauthorized Appearances: The explanation that majority signatures satisfied non-forum-shopping certification glossed over the distinct charge of acting without client authority for 15 of 49 individuals, a lapse deemed highly improbable for a lawyer of over 30 years' UP and firm training. Knowing that only the Solicitor General may represent the Republic in reversion, respondent nevertheless impleaded the Republic and signed for all plaintiffs. A lawyer may not represent a litigant without authority or leave of court, and willful unauthorized appearance is contumacious professional misconduct.
• Defenses and Penalty: Good faith, defined as honest intention to abstain from unconscientious advantage, was absent; bad faith, operating with furtive design, self-interest, or ulterior purpose, was deduced from misrepresentations, misreading of rules despite legal experience, and desperate scattershot filings negating sincere belief. Discretion on legal strategy must remain within bounds of law, truth, and justice and cannot sustain groundless suits. The alleged axe to grind was rejected because Atty. Uy was only counsel, not complainant, and had his own separate case; disbarment being sui generis, complainant motive is largely irrelevant, with public interest and fitness as officer of the court controlling. Disbarment rather than one- or two-year suspension was required by multiple violations, readiness to disregard rules, risk to the public, and incorrigibility shown by repetition after lenient six-month suspension in Plus Builders, Inc. vs. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. for similar falsehood and misuse of processes.

• Abuse of Procedure under Rule 10.03, Canon 10 — A lawyer must observe the rules of procedure and must not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Applied here, repeated collateral petitions and injunctive applications to avoid execution of final ejectment judgments constituted misuse that obstructed speedy and efficient administration of justice to the winners' prejudice.
• Prohibition on Multiple Actions and Forum-Shopping under Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12 — A lawyer shall not file multiple actions and shall not unduly delay a case, impede execution of judgment, or misuse court processes. Applied here, successive certiorari, annulment, and declaratory-relief actions over the same property and parties to obtain a favorable ruling and stall execution violated both rules and the forum-shopping prohibition, degrading justice and congesting dockets.
• Candor, Fairness, and Good Faith to the Court under Rule 10.01, Canon 10 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, consent thereto, mislead, or allow the court to be misled by artifice, and must never mislead the judge by artifice or false statement of fact or law. Applied here, conflicting extrinsic-fraud pleadings, misrepresentation of hearing proceedings contradicted by transcripts, and procurement of supporting client affidavits breached this duty.
• Zeal Within Bounds of Law under Rule 19.01, Canon 19 — A lawyer shall represent the client with zeal within the bounds of law, employing only fair and honest means consistent with truth and honor, and shall not prosecute frivolous appeals or institute groundless actions. Applied here, scattershot collateral suits to frustrate final judgments exceeded zealous advocacy; in conflict, duty to the court prevails over duty to the client.
• Courtesy, Fairness, and Candor Toward Colleagues under Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues. Applied here, accusing deceased prior counsel of deliberate neglect, corrupt sell-out, and connivance without factual basis, when respondent had no personal knowledge, maligned the colleague and violated the canon.
• Authority to Appear under Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 — A lawyer may not represent a litigant without authority from the litigant or representative or, absent authority, without leave of court; willful unauthorized appearance is contumacious professional misconduct warranting discipline. Applied here, acting for non-consenting litigants including deceased persons and signing for the impleaded Republic without Solicitor General authority sustained liability.
• Sui Generis Nature of Disbarment — Disciplinary proceedings are neither purely civil nor criminal but an investigation into fitness to remain an officer of the court, where public interest controls and complainant motive has little relevance, and the Court may act motu proprio. Applied here, the alleged personal grudge of complainant's counsel did not diminish liability.
• Good Faith vs. Bad Faith — Good faith connotes honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious or undue advantage; bad faith is a state of mind operating with furtive design, self-interest, ill will, or ulterior purpose, deducible from attendant acts and statements. Applied here, misrepresentations and dubious recourses by an experienced lawyer established bad faith, not sincere belief in merit.
• Fidelity to Client Within Bounds of Law — While owing absolute fidelity, devotion, and zeal to the client's genuine interest with utmost learning and ability, a lawyer must act only within law, give candid assessment of merits, maintain only just actions and honestly debatable defenses, and never wittingly promote groundless, false, or unlawful suits. Applied here, invocation of legal strategy could not justify falsehood and multiplicity of suits at the expense of truth and administration of justice.

• "While an attorney admittedly has the solemn duty to defend and protect the cause and rights of his client with all the fervor and energy within his command, yet, it is equally true that it is the primary duty of the lawyer to defend the dignity, authority and majesty of the law and the courts which enforce it." — States the limiting principle on zealous advocacy, grounding the rejection of multiplicity of suits and forum-shopping as means of client defense.
• "A lawyer is not at liberty to maintain and defend the cause of his clients thru means, inconsistent with truth and honor." — Defines the boundary between permissible strategy and misconduct, applied to respondent's successive blocking actions and falsehoods.
• "While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law." — Articulates the fidelity-within-law doctrine that defeated respondent's claim of discretionary legal strategy.
• "disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not - and does not involve - a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers." — Establishes why complainant motive is immaterial and public interest and fitness control disbarment.

• Plus Builders, Inc. vs. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7056 — Prior discipline of the same respondent for willful falsehood, misuse of processes to delay execution, and collaboration with non-lawyers; initially two years' suspension, reduced on leniency to six months. Cited as aggravating prior record proving incorrigibility and justifying escalation to disbarment.
• Pena vs. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298 — Cited with Agpalo and Chempil Export and Ligon for the proposition that filing multiple actions degrades justice, disrupts orderly procedure, and congests dockets.
• Chempil Export and Import Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 619 (1995) — Cited through Agpalo as authority on the harms of multiple suits and abuse of procedure.
• Ligon vs. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 503 (1998) — Cited through Agpalo on the same abuse-of-process principle.
• University of the East vs. Jader, 382 Phil. 697 (2000) — Cited through Philippine National Bank vs. Heirs of Estanislao Militar and Deogracias Militar for the definition of good faith as honest intention to abstain from undue advantage.
• Philippine National Bank vs. Heirs of Estanislao Militar and Deogracias Militar, G.R. Nos. 164801 and 165165 — Cited for the good-faith definition applied to reject respondent's claim of sincerity.
• Santiago vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127440 — Cited for the definition of bad faith as furtive design, self-interest, ill will, or ulterior purpose, applied to infer bad faith from respondent's acts.
• Choa vs. Chiongson, 329 Phil. 270 (1996) — Cited through Plus Builders for the rule that fidelity to client must be pursued only within bounds of law, truth, and reason, without groundless suits.
• In re: Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654 — Cited for the sui generis, non-punitive, public-interest nature of disciplinary proceedings where complainant or prosecutor is immaterial and the Court may act motu proprio.

• Rule 10.03, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Obligates observance of procedural rules without misuse to defeat justice. Applied to condemn repeated collateral actions and injunctive bids to thwart execution of final unlawful-detainer judgments.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits falsehood, consent thereto, and misleading the court by artifice. Applied to conflicting extrinsic-fraud allegations and fabricated hearing account contradicted by transcripts and minutes.
• Rule 12.02, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides a lawyer shall not file multiple actions. Applied to successive certiorari, annulment, and declaratory-relief petitions over the same property and parties for the same blocking objective.
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede execution of judgment, or misuse court processes. Applied to long-post-finality petitions geared to prevent execution.
• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues. Applied to unsubstantiated accusations of neglect, corruption, and connivance against deceased prior counsel.
• Rule 19.01, Canon 19, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires employment of only fair and honest means to attain lawful client objectives. Applied to reject frivolous, meritless, and groundless blocking suits as beyond zealous representation.
• Section 20(d), Rule 138, Rules of Court — Embodies the lawyer's oath never to mislead the judge or judicial officer by artifice or false statement of fact or law. Applied alongside Rule 10.01 to the hearing misrepresentation and pleading falsehoods.
• Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Govern authority to appear and discipline for misconduct; settled rule requires client authority or leave of court. Applied to appearances for non-consenting litigants and for the Republic without Solicitor General authority.
• Section 101, Public Land Act — Reserves reversion proceedings over public lands to the Solicitor General for the Republic. Applied to expose the second annulment-of-title petition's attempt to force the Republic to litigate an unauthorized suit.

Reynato S. Puno, Chief Justice; Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice; Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice; Conchita Carpio Morales, Associate Justice; Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Associate Justice; Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice; Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice; Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice; Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice; Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Associate Justice; Arturo D. Brion, Associate Justice; Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice; Roberto A. Abad, Associate Justice; Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice