Kimteng v. Young (Case Brief)

KIMTENG v. YOUNG, GR No 210554, August 5, 2015 (Second Division) Leonen J.
Facts:
Petitioners David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. You, Winnie L. You, et al., are majority
stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation who was ordered by this Court in a previous case, to
a liquidation proceeding. The case was raffled to the RTC Branch 211 of Mandaluyong where
respondent judge was presiding.
Respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Day Reynald Magat
were the practicing lawyers of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat law firm tasked to appear in the
liquidation proceedings as counsels for the liquidator.
Petitioners filed against the appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat in the
liquidation proceedings on the ground that “Revilla” was already disbarred in 2009. Judge Calo
of the RTC overruled the opposition stating 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. Young Law Firm did not exist.
Petitioners filed this petition asking that law firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and
Judge Ofelia L. Calo of the RTC Brach 211 of Mandaluyong, to be cited in contempt on the
ground that the use of a disbarred lawyer’s name in the firm name is tantamount to contempt of
court in purview of Rule 71, Section 3(d)(e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondent Atty. Young and atty. Magat counter that they maintained Revilla’s name in
the firm name for sentimental reasons, that they did not intend to deceive the public and that in
any case, the retention of Revilla’s name does not give added value or enhance the standing of
the member lawyers of the firm.. Atty. Gambol argues that in all cases he handled after Revilla’s
disbarment, he omitted Revilla’s name from the firm name in the pleadings that he signed.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Young Revilla Gambol & Magat Law Firm’s use of their disbarred
partner’s name in the law firm’s name constitutes contempt of court in purview of Rule 71,
Section 3(d)(e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
Ruling:
Yes. This court has defined contempt of court as “a disregard of, or disobedience to, the
rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body, or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly
behaviour or insolent language in its presence...to disrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect
due to such a body.”
Rule 71, Section 3(d)(e) provides that a person is guilty for indirect contempt for: “(d)
any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice ; (e) assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as
such without authority.” Moreover, respondents disregarded the Code of Professional
Responsibility when they retained the name of Revilla in their firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02
states, ‘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.”
Maintaining a disbarred lawyer’s name in the firm name is different from using a
deceased partner’s name. 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. The use of
the name of a person who is not authorized to practice law constitutes contempt of court.
In Camabliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, this court defined “practice of law” to mean

customarily or habitually holding oneself our to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a
source of livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding oneself out as a lawyer may be
shown by acts indicative of that purpose like identifying oneself as an attorney, appearing in
court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the
general practice of law.
From the time respondent Revila was disbarred in 2009, it appears that no efforts were
exerted to remove his name from the firm name. Thus, respondents Atty. Young and Atty.
Magat are held LIABLE for contempt of court and are meted a FINE of Php 30,000.00 each.
Meanwhile, this court recognizes Atty. Gambol’s effort to avoid misleading the public by
removing respondent Revilla’s name in the pleadings he filed. Thus the complaint against him is
DISMISSED. Complaint against respondent Judge Ofelia Calo is REDOCKETED as an
administrative matter.

Kimteng v. Young (Case Brief)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kimteng v. Young (Case Brief)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kimteng v. Young (Case Brief)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KIMTENG v. YOUNG, GR No 210554, August 5, 2015 (Second Division) Leonen J.

In Camabliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, this court defined “practice of law” to mean

You might also like