G.R. No. 210554

5/27/2021 G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L.
VIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WO…
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015
DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA
WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, Petitioners, v. ATTY.
WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN
REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL
& MAGAT, AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 211 OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
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.
Through this Petition,1 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.2 Anastacio
Revilla, Jr. (Revilla) was disbarred on December 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of this court in A.C.
No. 7054 entitled Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.3
David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. Yu, Winnie L. Yu, Vivian L. Yu, Rosa Gan, Lilian Chua Woo Yukimteng,
Santos Yu, Marcelo Yu, and Sin Chiao Yu Lim are the majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial
Corporation.4
In Majority Stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation v. Lim, et al.,5 this court ordered the
liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation and transferred the case to the appropriate Regional Trial
Court branch to supervise the liquidation.6
The liquidation was raffled to Branch 211 of the Regional Trial Court in Mandaluyong City,7 presided
by Judge Calo.8
Walter T. Young (Atty. Young), Jovito Gambol (Atty. Gambol), and Dan Reynald Magat (Atty. Magat)
are lawyers practicing under the firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat.9 They entered their appearance
in the liquidation proceedings as counsels for the liquidator.10
An Opposition11 was filed against the appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat on the ground
that Revilla was already disbarred in 2009.12
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply13 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.14
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.15 Young Law Firm does not exist.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015augustdecisions.php?id=827 1/9
5/27/2021 G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WO…
Thus, petitioners David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. Yu, Winnie L. Yu, Vivian L. Yu, Rosa Gan, Lilian Chua Woo
Yukimteng, Santos Yu, Marcelo Yu, and Sin Chiao Yu Lim filed this Petition under Rule 71 to cite
respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Atty. Jovito Gambol, Atty. Dan Reynald R.
Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo in contempt.
This court required respondents to comment on the Petition.16 Respondent law firm Young Revilla
Gambol & Magat filed its Comment17 on April 14, 2014, while respondent Atty. Gambol filed a
separate Comment.18
On April 16, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Reply.19 This was granted
in the Resolution20 dated June 18, 2014. In the same Resolution, this court denied petitioners' Motion
to Consider Case Submitted without Comment from [Judge Calo]21 and ordered the parties to await
Judge Calo's comment.22
Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a Manifestation,23 informing this court that they have yet to
receive a copy of Judge Calo's Comment.24 No Comment was filed by Judge Calo.
Petitioners cite San Luis v. Pineda25 and United States v. Ney, et al.26 to support their argument that
the use of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is tantamount to contempt of court.27
Private Respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat counter that they maintained Revilla's name in the
firm name for sentimental reasons.28
Atty. Young and Atty. Magat explained that they did not intend to deceive the public29 and that in any
case, the retention of Revilla's name "does not give added value to the [law firm] nor does it enhance
the standing of the member lawyers thereof."30
They further argue that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The non-deletion of [Anastacio E. Revilla's] name in the Young Law Firm's name is no
more misleading than including the names of dead or retired partners in a law firm's
name. It is more for sentimental reasons. It is a fraternal expression to a former brother
in the profession that the Private Respondents fully understand, his [referring to Revilla]
principled albeit quixotic advocacy.31 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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.32 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.33
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.34
Private respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment,35 arguing that from the time Revilla was
disbarred, he no longer practiced law.36
Private respondent Atty. Gambol stated that he passed the 1990 Bar Examination but took his oath in
July 2006.37 He is a junior member of the Young Revilla Magat & Gambol law firm and "has no power
and/or authority [to decide] who should be removed from the firm's name[.]"38
Private respondent Atty. Gambol argues that in all the cases he handled after Re villa's disbarment, he
omitted Re villa's name from the firm name in the pleadings that he signed. Such deletion was
through his own initiative.39
Petitioners filed their Reply,40 with petitioners addressing respondents' allegations that they remained
silent on the disbarment case they had filed by citing Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of
Court,41 which provides that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys
....
Section 18. Confidentiality. — Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and

confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Petitioners argue that liability for contempt is separate from disciplinary action; hence, no forum
shopping was committed.42
Petitioners did not address private respondents' allegations regarding the delay in the liquidation of
Ruby Industrial Corporation.
The issues in this case are:
First, 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; cralawlawlibrary
Second, 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; cralawlawlibrary
Third, whether private respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is in contempt of court for continuing to
practice law even after disbarment; cralawlawlibrary
Fourth, 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; and
Lastly, whether the filing of this Petition despite the pendency of a disbarment complaint before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines constitutes forum shopping.
II
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions; cralawlawlibrary
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,

including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or
attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of
executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given
to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto; cralawlawlibrary
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule; cralawlawlibrary
(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;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; cralawlawlibrary
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer
by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him. (Emphasis supplied) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This court has defined contempt of court as: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a

disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an
interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence
or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a
body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the
authority, justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing
within its legal signification a variety of different acts.43 (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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."44
III
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.
The use of a deceased partner's name in the firm name was the issue in the consolidated
cases Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez &
Castillo" and In the matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Ozaeta,
Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes."45 Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to continue including
Atty. Alexander Sycip's and Atty. Herminio Ozaeta's names in their firm names.46 This court denied
the petitions, explaining that there is a possibility of deception in the use of a deceased partner's
name.47 Also, Article 1815 of the Civil Code48shows that the partners in a partnership should be
"living persons who can be subjected to liability."49Further, the use of a deceased partner's name is
not a custom in the Philippines.50 On the contrary, the local custom shows that the firm name usually
identifies the senior members or partners of a law firm.51 Justice Aquino dissented, stating that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I am of the opinion that the petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated
in the letterheads of the two firms (as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, former
Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the period when they served as partners
should be stated therein.
Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of the names of their
deceased founders is to retain the clients who had customarily sought the legal services of
Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the goodwill attached to the names of
those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate motivation.
The retention of their names is not illegal per se. That practice was followed before the
war by the law firm of James Ross. Notwithstanding the death of Judge Ross, the founder
of the law firm of Ross, Lawrence, Selph and Carrascoso, his name was retained in the
firm name with an indication of the year when he died. No one complained that the
retention of the name of Judge Ross in the firm name was illegal or unethical.52 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The use of a deceased partner's name in a law firm's name was allowed upon the effectivity of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, with the requirement that "the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased."53
On the other hand, this court has ruled that the use of the name of a person who is not authorized to
practice law constitutes contempt of court.
In San Luis v. Pineda, this court has held that "[n]eedless to say, [the] practice of law by one who is
disbarred constitutes contempt of court."54United States v. Ney, et al. involved J. Garcia Bosque who
was denied admission to the bar because he chose to remain a Spanish subject during the cession of
the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris.55 Bosque entered into an arrangement with Ney, a practicing
attorney, and established "Ney & Bosque."56 Bosque did not personally appear in courts but the
papers of their office were signed "Ney and Bosque-C.W. Ney, Abogado."57 The matter was referred to
the then Attorney-General, and contempt proceedings were instituted.58 At that time, Section 232 of
the Code of Civil Procedure defined contempt of court as: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of

a court, or injunction granted by a court or judge; cralawlawlibrary
2. Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions.59 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This court found that Atty. Ney was in contempt of court and held that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Under the second subdivision of [Section 232], Bosque is obviously not answerable,
inasmuch as he was not an officer of the court. On the other hand, under this subdivision,
the defendant Ney, as an admitted attorney, is liable if his conduct amounted to
misbehavior. We are of the opinion that it did. In the offense of Bosque in holding himself
out as a general practitioner Ney participated, and for the improper signature of the
pleadings he was chiefly and personally responsible.60 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio,61 Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio used a letterhead indicating
that Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr. was a senior partner in the Cristal-Tenorio Law Office when, in fact, he was
not a lawyer.62This court held that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to
practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read as follows: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Canon 9 — A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized

practice of law.
Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of
the Bar in good standing. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The term "practice of law" implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the
public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his
services. Holding one's self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that
purpose like identifying oneself as 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.
Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law.
The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized
practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the
practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and
professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the
bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this
purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit
his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the
unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it
a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the
unauthorized practice of law.63 (Citations omitted) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
From the time respondent Revilla 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.
Rule 71, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the imposable penalties for
indirect contempt: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt.—If the respondent is adjudged guilty of

indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt
committed against a lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the contempt
consists in the violation of a writ of injunction, temporary restraining order or status
quo order, he may also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by
such violation of the property involved or such amount as may be alleged and proved.
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall issue for the enforcement of a
judgment imposing a fine unless the court otherwise provides. (Emphasis supplied) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In view of Rule 71, Section 7, a fine of P30,000.00 each is imposed on respondents Atty. Young and
Atty. Magat.
IV
Respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment, explaining that he dropped respondent Re villa's
name from the firm name in the pleadings that he filed in several courts. Respondent Atty. Gambol's
explanation is supported by the allegations in the Comment filed by respondents Atty. Young and Atty.
Magat stating: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In fact, when co-Private Respondent Gambol, initially cowed perhaps, by the same
intimidation worked upon him by the Complainants' counsel in another case, asked
permission to delete [Anastacio E. Revilla's] name in the Young Law Firm's name in the
pleadings that he (i.e. Private Respondent Gambol) would subsequently file, Respondent
Young allowed him to do so.64 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This court recognizes respondent 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.
Petitioners included Revilla as a respondent, but they did not serve copies of the Petition and
subsequent pleadings upon him. Respondent Revilla also did not receive a copy of this court's
Resolution requiring respondents to comment. Thus, this court shall refrain from ruling upon
respondent Revilla's liability.
With regard to respondent Judge Calo, petitioners pray that she be cited in contempt for allowing
respondent Atty. Young's appearance as long as it was under the Young Law Firm. A photocopy of the
Order65 was attached to the Petition. A portion of Judge Calo's Order states: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Although this court grants the appearance of Atty. Walter Young for the Liquidator, his
appearance however shall be allowed only if in the name of the Young Law Firm, managed
by the said counsel, and not under the name of the Law Firm of Young Revilla Gambol and
Magat. This is to avoid any misconception that a disbarred lawyer, Revilla, continues to
practice law.66 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Petitioners argue that respondent Judge Calo's Order is an indirect violation of "the proscription
against the participation of ... disbarred lawyer[s]"67 in court. Further, the Young Law Firm does not
exist.68
Respondent Judge Calo was required to file a Comment on the Resolution69 dated February 24, 2014,
but she did not comply.
From petitioners' allegations, it appears that respondent Judge Calo committed an error in judgment
when she allowed respondent Atty. Young's appearance under the Young Law Firm. However, this
Petition to cite respondent Judge Calo in contempt is not the proper remedy. Maylas, Jr. v. Judge
Sese70 discussed the remedies available to litigants as follows: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[T]he law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being committed
by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or
irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error in appreciation or
admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or substantive law or
legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of a judgment or
final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against error
or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical,
capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter alia the special
civil actions of certiorari , prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition
for change of venue, as the case may be.
Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal
actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these
judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these
judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or
proceeding, are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the
judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the
available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken
with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability
may be said to have opened, or closed.71 (Citation omitted) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Whether petitioners availed themselves of judicial remedies was not stated in their Petition.
Nevertheless, this court cannot ignore the possible effect of respondent Judge Calo's Order. Thus, the
Complaint against respondent Judge Calo shall be re-docketed as an administrative matter. Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Also, Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court72 provides that the
administrative functions of this court include "disciplinary and administrative matters involving
justices, judges, and court personnel[.]"
VI
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.73 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
this Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping. Forum shopping has been
defined as: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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.74 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The elements of forum shopping are: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions; cralawlawlibrary
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and
(c) 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.75 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This court has explained that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, and are not akin to civil or
criminal cases.76 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."77
Also, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' findings are recommendatory, and the power to sanction
erring members of the bar lies with this court.78
As discussed by this court in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan:79
The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is broader [than] the
power to punish for contempt. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and
non-lawyers, both in and out of court. Frequently, where the contemnor is a lawyer, the
contumacious conduct also constitutes professional misconduct which calls into play the
disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. Where the respondent is a lawyer, however,
the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers may come into play whether or
not the misconduct with which the respondent is charged also constitutes contempt of
court. The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of
disciplinary authority of the Court over lawyers. The disciplinary authority of the Court
over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to
the Bar. A lawyers [sic] is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as
such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and
resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert,
or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional
misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and contumacious
conduct warranting application of the contempt power.80 (Citations omitted) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, 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.
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.
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.
The Complaint against respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is also ordered re-docketed as an
administrative matter.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to private
respondents' personal records as attorneys, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and to the Office
of the Court Administrator for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 210554

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 210554

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

G.R. No. 210554

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/27/2021 G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L.

VIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WO…

G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015

They further argue that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

Section 18. Confidentiality. — Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and

The issues in this case are:

(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without

(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; cralawlawlibrary

This court has defined contempt of court as: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a

Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of

Responsibility, which read as follows: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Canon 9 — A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized

SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt.—If the respondent is adjudged guilty of

when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,

The elements of forum shopping are: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As discussed by this court in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan:79

You might also like