A.C. No.

7056               February 11, 2009

PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and EDGARDO C. GARCIA, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.

RESOLUTION

NACHURA, J.:

To be resolved is a motion for reconsideration of the SC’s decision dated

September 13, 2006, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for
committing a wilful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing
court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and
collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. Thus,
SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law

FACTS:

On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial

Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders,
Inc. and against the tenants/farmers, who were the clients of respondent,
Atty.Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere
tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was
elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, sustaining complainant’s
rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent
was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court
processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through
the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and
the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision.
Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice
of law – holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm.

Respondent duly filed a motion for reconsideration, appealing to the Court to

take a second look at his case and praying that the penalty of suspension of
two years be reduced to mere reprimand or admonition for the sake of his
family and the poor clients he was defending.2

Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. He
avers that he merely exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which
his clients were entitled under the lawHe posits that he was only being
protective of the interest of his clients as a good father would be protective
of his own family,5 and that his services to Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al were
almost pro bono.61avvphi1

Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the

courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and
supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and forgiveness.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibilityspecifically Canon 9.

Held:

He indeed violated Canon 9. The Canon states that "— A lawyer shall not
directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.”
'Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall notdelegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only beperformed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.

It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his
full attention, diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.11 A lawyer’s
devotion to his client’s cause not only requires but also entitles him to
deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him
or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to
succeed.

The SC recognized his dedication and conviction in defending the less

fortunate, however, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or
defense within the authority of the law and this obligation, is not to be
performed at the expense of truth and justice Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by
impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.15

 Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondent’s motion for reconsideration and humble
acknowledgment of his misfeasance, 

Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

previous Decision was MODIFIED in that respondent is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months