CONRADO N. QUE vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA,
JR., A.C. No.7054, November 11, 2014
“x x x.
On May 17, 2012, the respondent sent a letter11 addressed to the Members of the Court
En Banc once again reiterating his prayer to lift the order of disbarment. He
alleged among others that for more than three years that he has been disbarred
in the practice of law, he has never been involved in any immoral or illegal
activities, has devoted himself in the services of St. Peter Parish and Shrine,
Commonwealth Avenue as Eucharistic Minister leader, has conducted regular
monthly lectures on the subject of marriage at the Diocese of Novaliches, and
has participated as monthly financial contributor to Mr. Carmel Church, Lucena
City. He also begged the Court to no longer prolong his penalty since it had
already served its purpose. The plea was also denied on July 3, 2012.12
On August 30, 2012, the respondent once more prayed for his reinstatement professing repentance and remorse for what he did.13 He pleaded for the Court’s consideration, and vowed that he will no longer misuse the rules of procedure but instead, devote his time and energy for its proper observance and implementation. He also stated that for almost three years of being disbarred from the practice of law, he has never been involved in any unlawful, dishonest, and immoral activities. He promised to maintain at all times a high degree of legal proficiency, morality, integrity, and fair dealings to the courts, clients, and the legal profession in accordance with the values and morals embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
X x x.
The respondent also pleads for clemency, not because he intends to practice law again, but to be made whole, to recover from being shattered, and to finally have peace of mind. He expressed his sincere repentance and deep remorse by taking full responsibility for his misdemeanor. He also prayed that his disbarment be lifted and that he be reinstated as a member of the Philippine bar. As part of his petition, he submitted a Medical Abstract18evidencing his diagnosis for chronic kidney disease, and a certification19 from St. Peter Parish, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, proving that he and his family are dedicated parishioners.
X x x.
We deny the present appeal.
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions.20 It is not a natural, absolute or
constitutional right granted to everyone who demands it, but rather, a special
privilege granted and continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness
inintellectual attainment and in moral character.21 The same reasoning applies to
reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When exercising its inherent power to
grant reinstatement, the Court should see to it that only those who establish
their present moral fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the
Bar. Thus, though the doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed
on a disbarred attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well
as to the general public to ensure that if the doors are opened,it is done so
only as a matter of justice.22
The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the
practice of law is whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated himself or
herself in conduct and character.23Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in
the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the
Court.24 The lawyer has to demonstrate and prove
by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is again worthy of membership
in the Bar. The Court will take into consideration his or her character and
standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for
which he or she was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to the disbarment,
and the time that has elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement.25
In the present case, we note that before his admission to
the Bar, the respondent had demonstrated an active involvement and
participation in community and church activities by joining Youth For Christ,
Catechism, and Bible Study and Sharing. Likewise, upon admission to the Bar,
the respondent worked as Municipal Attorney in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque rendering
free legal assistance to his townmates who were inneed of legal service.
Thereafter, the respondentwas appointed as a Municipal Administrator and had
continued extending assistance to the indigent residents.
The respondent also actively engaged and participated in
various community projects, through the Marinduque Jaycees, where he served as
President from 1980 to 1981, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Marinduque Chapter, where he served as a member, Director, and President from
1982 to 1987.
In his present appeal for judicial clemency, the respondent
acknowledged his indiscretions and claimed to have taken full responsibility
for his misdemeanor. Unlike in his previous petitions/appeal for judicial
clemency, the respondent no longerquestioned the Court’s decision. According to
him, he has long expressed deep remorse and genuine repentance.
The respondent also claimed that the long period of his
disbarment gave him sufficient time to reflect on his professional conduct, to
show remorse and repentance, and to realize the gravity of his mistakes. After
his disbarment, the respondent continued lending assistance, and deviated his
time and effort in pursuing civic and religious work that significantly
contributed to his character reformation.He professed that during his almost
five (5) years of disbarment, he has been an active member of the Couples for
Christ, Marriage Encounter, and Knights of Columbus; and through his
affiliations with these groups, he had served in the ecclesial affairs in his
parish as an Extraordinary Minister for Holy Communion and a lecturer on Legal
Aspect of Marriage Pre-Cana and Marriage Preparation Seminar at the Parish
Church of St. Peter in Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.
Although the Court believes that the respondent is not
inherently lacking in moral fiber as shown by his conduct prior to his
disbarment, we are not convinced that he had sufficiently achieved moral
reformation.
In Rodolfo M. Bernardo v. Atty. Ismael F. Mejia,26 the Court, in deciding whether or not
to reinstate Atty. Mejia, considered that 15 years had already elapsed from the
time hewas disbarred, which gave him sufficient time to acknowledge his
infractions and to repent. The Court also took into account the fact that Atty.
Mejiais already of advanced years, has long repented, and suffered enough. The
Court also notedthat he had made a significant contribution by putting up the
Mejia Law Journal containing his religious and social writings; and the
religious organization named "El Cristo Movement and Crusade on Miracle of
the Heart and Mind." Furthermore, the Court considered that Atty. Mejia
committed no other transgressions since he was disbarred.
Similarly in Adez Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,27 the Court granted the reinstatement of
the disbarred lawyer (found to be guilty of intercalating a material fact in a
CA decision) and considered the period of three (3) years as sufficient time to
do soul-searching and to prove that he is worthy to practice law. In that case,
the Court took into consideration the disbarred lawyer’s sincere admission of
guilt and repeated pleas for compassion.
Also in Valencia v. Antiniw,28 the Court reinstated Atty. Antiniw (who
was found guilty of malpractice in falsifying a notarized deed of sale and
subsequently introducing the document in court) after considering the long
period of his disbarment (almost 15 years). The Court considered that during
Atty. Antiniw’s disbarment, he has been persistent in reiterating his apologies
to the Court, has engaged inhumanitarian and civic services, and retained an
unblemished record as an elected public servant, as shown by the testimonials
of the numerous civic and professional organizations, government institutions,
and members of the judiciary.
In all these cases, the Court considered the conduct of the
disbarred attorney before and after his disbarment, the time that had elapsed
from the disbarment and the application for reinstatement, and more
importantly, the disbarred attorneys’ sincere realization and acknowledgement
of guilt.
In the present case, we are not fully convinced that the
passage of more than four (4) years is sufficient to enable the respondent to
reflect and to realize his professional transgressions.
We emphasize that this is the second time that the
respondent was accused and was found guilty of gross misconduct. The
respondent, in an earlier case of Plus Builders, Inc. v. Atty. Anastacio E.
Revilla,Jr.,29 was likewise found guilty of gross
misconduct for committing willful and intentional falsehood before the court;
misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment;
and collaborating with nonlawyers in the illegal practice of law – mostly the
same grounds on which the Decision dated December 4, 2009 (2nd disbarment) was
based. In Plus Builders, we granted the respondent’s motion for reconsideration
and reduced the penalty of suspension from the practice of law from two (2)
years to six (6) months out of compassion to the respondent.
Considering the respondent’s earlier disbarment case(and
subsequent reduction of the penalty imposed as an act of clemency), and another
disbarment case against him still pending review by the Court, we are not fully
and convincingly satisfied that the respondent has already reformed. The period
of five (5) years is likewise not considerably long considering the nature and
perversityof the respondent’s misdeeds. We believe that it is still early for
the Court to consider the respondent’s reinstatement.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the respondent's
sincerity in acknowledging his guilt. While he expressly stated in his appeal
that he had taken full responsibility of his misdemeanor, his previous
inclination to pass the blame to other individuals, to invoke self-denial, and
to make alibis for his wrongdoings, contradicted his assertion. The respondent
also failed to submit proof satisfactorily showing his contrition. He failed to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is again worthy of
membership in the legal profession. We thus entertain serious doubts that the
respondent had completely reformed.
As a final word, while the Court sympathizes with the
respondent's unfortunate physical condition, we stress that in considering his
application for reinstatement to the practice of law, the duty of the Court is
to determine whether he has established moral reformation and rehabilitation,
disregarding its feeling of sympathy or pity. Surely at this point, this
requirement was not met. Until such time when the respondent can demonstrate to
the Court that he has completely rehabilitated himself and deserves to resume
his membership in the Bar, Our decision to disbar him from the practice of law
stands.
X x x.”
