Summary: 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.
FACTS: Through
this Petition, petitioners ask that law firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat,
and Judge Ofelia L. Calo (Judge Calo), be cited in contempt of court under
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.
(Revilla) was disbarred on December 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of the court
in A.C. No. 7054 entitled Que v. Atty.
Revilla, Jr.
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply to the
Opposition stating that the firm opted to retain Revilla's name in the firm
name even after he had been disbarred, with the retention serving as an act of
charity. Judge Calo overruled the opposition to the appearance of Young Revilla
Gambol & Magat and stated that Atty. Young could still appear for the
liquidator as long as his appearance was under the Young Law Firm and not under
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. However, Young Law Firm does not exist.
On April 16, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to
File Consolidated Reply. This was granted in the Resolution dated June 18,
2014. In the same Resolution, the court denied petitioners' Motion to Consider
Case Submitted without Comment from Judge Calo and ordered the parties to await
Judge Calo's comment.
Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a Manifestation,
informing this court that they have yet to receive a copy of Judge Calo's
Comment. No Comment was filed by Judge Calo.
Private respondents point out that the Balgos Law Firm is
derailing the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation by filing this
Petition for contempt because the Balgos Law Firm resents that its nominee was
not elected as liquidator. Private respondents add that petitioners have
continuously blocked Ruby Industrial Corporation's unsecured creditors from
obtaining relief, as shown by the number of times that Ruby Industrial
Corporation's cases have reached this court.
Moreover, Private respondents also raise the issue of forum
shopping in their Comment because petitioners allegedly filed a disbarment
Complaint against them before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. One of the grounds for disbarment cited by petitioners was
the use of Revilla's name in their firm name.
Petitioners argue that liability for contempt is separate
from disciplinary action; hence, no forum shopping was committed. Also,
petitioners did not address private respondents' allegations regarding the
delay in the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation.
ISSUES: (a)
Whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and
Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are in contempt of court when they continued to use
respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.'s name in their firm name even after his
disbarment.
(b)
Whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young,
Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are in contempt of court
for deliberately allowing a disbarred lawyer to engage in the practice of
law.
(c)
Whether private respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is
in contempt of court for continuing to practice law even after disbarment.
(d)
Whether public respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is in
contempt of court when she held that respondent Atty. Walter T. Young can
appear in court as long as it is under the Young Law Firm, which is a
non-existent firm.
(e)
Whether the filing of the Petition despite the pendency
of a disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
constitutes forum shopping.
HELD: (a)
Respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are found in
contempt of court for using a disbarred lawyer's name in their firm name and
are meted a fine of P30,000.00 each.
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:
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.
In this case, respondents committed acts that are
considered indirect contempt under
Section 3 of Rule 71. In addition, respondents disregarded
the Code of Professional Responsibility when they retained the name of
respondent Revilla in their firm name.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading or assumed name shall be used. 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.
Respondents argue that the use of respondent Revilla's name
is "no more misleading than including the names of dead or retired
partners in a law firm's name."
Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is
different from using a deceased partner's name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule
3.02 allows the use of a deceased partner's name as long as there is an
indication that the partner is deceased. This ensures that the public is not
misled. On the other hand, 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.
(b)
The Complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol is DISMISSED.
This is without prejudice to any disciplinary liabilities of respondents Atty.
Walter T. Young, Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
(c)
The counsels are 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.
(d)
The Complaint against respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo
is also ordered redocketed as an administrative matter.
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
SECTION 11. The
Supreme Court en bane shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon. Also, Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court,
provides that the administrative functions of this court include
"disciplinary and administrative matters involving justices, judges, and
court personnel.
(e)
As to the allegation of forum shopping, petitioners do
not deny that they filed a Complaint for disbarment. They argue, however, that
they did not mention the disbarment proceedings against respondents in view of
Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which states that disbarment
proceedings are private and confidential.
In addition, a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a Complaint for
disbarment are different from each other. The filing of a Complaint for
disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the filing of the
Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping. Forum
shopping has been defined as: when a party repetitively avails of several
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in
or already resolved adversely by some other court. The elements of forum
shopping are:
(i)
identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions.
(ii)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts.
(iii)
the identity of the two preceding particulars, such
that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res judicata in
the action under consideration.
The Supreme court has explained that disbarment proceedings
are sui generis, and are not akin to civil or criminal cases. A disbarment
proceeding "is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of
its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts."
Also, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' findings are recommendatory, and
the power to sanction erring members of the bar lies with Supreme court.
Comments
Post a Comment