17 Kimteng vs. Atty. Young, G.R. No. 210554, August 5, 2015

Henry G. Funda, Jr.
Comment because petitioners allegedly filed a

LLB1-A 5year disbarment Complaint against them before the
David Yu Kimteng petitionervs Atty Walter T. Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of
Young respondent the Philippines. One of the grounds for
G.R. N0 210554 disbarment cited by petitioners was the use of
Facts: Revilla's name in their firm name.
“A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be Petitioners argue that liability for
part of a firm's name. A lawyer who appears contempt is separate from disciplinary action;
under a firm name that contains a disbarred hence, no forum shopping was committed.
lawyer's name commits indirect contempt of Also, petitioners did not address private
court.” respondents' allegations regarding the delay in
Through this Petition, petitioners ask that the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation.
law firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, and Issues:
Judge Ofelia L. Calo (Judge Calo), be cited in
contempt of court under Rule 71 of the Rules of a) Whether private respondents Atty. Walter
Court. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (Revilla) was disbarred T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty.
on December 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of Dan Reynald R. Magat are in contempt
the court in A.C. No. 7054 entitled Que v. Atty. of court when they continued to use
Revilla, Jr. respondent Anastacio E. Revilla Jr.'s
name in their firm name even after his
Young Revilla Gambol & Magatfiled a disbarment.
Replyto the Opposition stating that the firm b) Whether private respondents Atty. Walter
opted to retain Revilla's name in the firm name T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty.
even after he had been disbarred, with the Dan Reynald R. Magat are in contempt
retention serving as an act of charity. Judge Calo of court for deliberately allowing a
overruled the opposition to the appearance of disbarred lawyer to engage in the practice
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and stated that of law.
Atty. Young could still appear for the liquidator as c) Whether private respondent Anastacio
long as his appearance was under the Young Law E. Revilla, Jr. is in contempt of court
Firm and not under Young Revilla Gambol & for continuing to practice law even after
Magat. However, Young Law Firm does not exist. disbarment.
On April 16, 2014, petitioners filed a d) Whether public respondent Judge Ofelia
Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Reply. This L. Calo is in contempt of court when she
was granted in the Resolution dated June 18, held that respondent Atty. Walter T.
2014. In the same Resolution, the court denied Young can appear in court as long as it is
petitioners' Motion to Consider Case Submitted under the Young Law Firm, which is a
without Comment from Judge Calo and ordered non-existent firm.
the parties to await Judge Calo's comment. e) Whether the filing of the Petition despite
the pendency of a disbarment complaint
Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed before the Integrated Bar of the
a Manifestation, informing this court that they Philippines constitutes forum shopping.
have yet to receive a copy of Judge Calo's
Comment. No Comment was filed by Judge Calo. Ruling:
Private respondents point out that the a) Respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and
Balgos Law Firm is derailing the liquidation of Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are found in
Ruby Industrial Corporation by filing this Petition contempt of court for using a disbarred
for contempt because the Balgos Law Firm lawyer's name in their firm name and are
resents that its nominee was not elected as meted a fine of P30,000.00 each.
liquidator. Private respondents add that Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
petitioners have continuously blocked Ruby Procedure provides:
Industrial Corporation's unsecured creditors from
obtaining relief, as shown by the number of times SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished
that Ruby Industrial Corporation's cases have after charge and hearing. After charge in
reached this court. writing has been filed, and an opportunity
given to the respondent to comment thereon
Moreover, Private respondents also within such period as may be fixed by the
raise the issue of forum shopping in their court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a
person guilty of any of the following acts may Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of
be punished for indirect contempt. the Supreme Court, provides that the
administrative functions of this court
In this case, respondents committed acts
include "disciplinary and administrative
that are considered indirect contempt
matters involving justices, judges, and court
under Section 3 of Rule 71. In addition,
personnel.
respondents disregarded the Code of
Professional Responsibility when they e) As to the allegation of forum shopping,
retained the name of respondent Revilla in petitioners do not deny that they filed a
their firm name. Complaint for disbarment. They argue,
however, that they did not mention the
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:
disbarment proceedings against
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, respondents in view of Rule 139-B,
no false, misleading or assumed name shall be Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which
used. The continued use of the name of a states that disbarment proceedings are
deceased partner is permissible provided that private and confidential.
the firm indicates in all its communications that
In addition, a Petition for contempt under
said partner is deceased.
Rule 71 and a Complaint for disbarment are
Respondents argue that the use of different from each other. The filing of a
respondent Revilla's name is "no more Complaint for disbarment before the
misleading than including the names of dead or Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the filing
retired partners in a law firm's name." of the Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do
not constitute forum shopping. Forum
Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in shopping has been defined as: when a party
the firm name is different from using a deceased repetitively avails of several judicial
partner's name in the firm name. Canon 3, remedies in different courts, simultaneously
Rule 3.02 allows the use of a deceased or successively, all substantially founded on
partner's name as long as there is an indication the same transactions and the same essential
that the partner is deceased. This ensures that facts and circumstances, and all raising
the public is not misled. On the other hand, the substantially the same issues either pending
retention of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm in or already resolved adversely by some
name may mislead the public into believing that other court.
the lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
The elements of forum shopping are:
b) The Complaint against Atty. Jovito
Gambol is DISMISSED. This is without i. identity of parties, or at least such
prejudice to any disciplinary liabilities parties as representthe same
of respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, interests in both actions.
Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat, and Judge ii. identity of rights asserted and relief
Ofelia L. Calo. prayed for, the relief being founded
c) The counsels are ordered to make the on the same facts.
necessary amendments in relation to the iii. the identity of the two preceding
use of the disbarred lawyer's name particulars, such that any judgment
including changes in their signage, rendered in the other action will,
notice of appearances, stationeries, and regardless of which party is
like material within a period of five (5) successful, amount tores judicatain
days from receipt. the action under consideration.
d) The Complaint against respondent
The Supreme court has explained that
Judge Ofelia L. Calo is also ordered re-
disbarment proceedings are sui generis, and
docketed as an administrative matter.
are not akin to civil or criminal cases. A
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: disbarment proceeding "is intended to cleanse
the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable
SECTION 11. . .The Supreme Court en bane members in order to protect the public and the
shall have the power to discipline judges of courts. "Also, the Integrated Bar of the
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a Philippines' findings are recommendatory, and
vote of a majority of the Members who the power to sanction erring members of the bar
actually took part in the deliberations on the lies with Supreme court.
issues in the case and voted thereon. Also,

17 Kimteng vs. Atty. Young, G.R. No. 210554, August 5, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17 Kimteng vs. Atty. Young, G.R. No. 210554, August 5, 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

17 Kimteng vs. Atty. Young, G.R. No. 210554, August 5, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henry G. Funda, Jr.

Comment because petitioners allegedly filed a

You might also like