Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 208 views

    Plus Builders v. Revilla Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    1) The Supreme Court found respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., guilty of gross misconduct for intentionally filing false motions and petitions to delay execution of a decision in favor of Plus Builders, Inc. over land claimed by his clients. 2) While Revilla argued he was defending poor, uneducated clients, the Court held lawyers have a duty to present legal remedies ethically and not unduly delay cases. 3) Considering Revilla's motivation to help his clients and the need for compassion, the Court reduced his penalty from a 2-year suspension to a 6-month suspension from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Plus Builders v. Revilla Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    208 views1 page
    1) The Supreme Court found respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., guilty of gross misconduct for intentionally filing false motions and petitions to delay execution of a decision in favor of Plus Builders, Inc. over land claimed by his clients. 2) While Revilla argued he was defending poor, uneducated clients, the Court held lawyers have a duty to present legal remedies ethically and not unduly delay cases. 3) Considering Revilla's motivation to help his clients and the need for compassion, the Court reduced his penalty from a 2-year suspension to a 6-month suspension from practicing law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court found respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., guilty of gross misconduct for intentionally filing false motions and petitions to delay execution of a decision in favor of Plus Builders, Inc. over land claimed by his clients. 2) While Revilla argued he was defending poor, uneducated clients, the Court held lawyers have a duty to present legal remedies ethically and not unduly delay cases. 3) Considering Revilla's motivation to help his clients and the need for compassion, the Court reduced his penalty from a 2-year suspension to a 6-month suspension from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    208 views1 page

    Plus Builders v. Revilla Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    1) The Supreme Court found respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., guilty of gross misconduct for intentionally filing false motions and petitions to delay execution of a decision in favor of Plus Builders, Inc. over land claimed by his clients. 2) While Revilla argued he was defending poor, uneducated clients, the Court held lawyers have a duty to present legal remedies ethically and not unduly delay cases. 3) Considering Revilla's motivation to help his clients and the need for compassion, the Court reduced his penalty from a 2-year suspension to a 6-month suspension from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Plus Builders v.

    Revilla
    A.C. No. 7056
    February 11, 2009

    Facts: A decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor
    of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers who were the clients
    of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent's clients
    were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The Supreme
    Court sustained complainant's rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients' lost
    cause, respondent found guilty of gross misconduct and is suspended for two years from
    the practice of law for having committed intentional falsehood; and misusing 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. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and
    prayed 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.

    Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

    Held: Yes. 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.

    In the case at bar, it is apparent that the respondent's acts complained of were committed
    out of his desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated.
    However, respondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer
    of the court, which is to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law.
    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.

    Certainly, violations of these canons cannot be countenanced, as respondent must have


    realized with the sanction he received from the Court. However, the Court also knows
    how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate
    penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. The Court thus finds the suspension of six
    (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this case.

    You might also like