AC 5473; (January, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. 5473. January 23, 2018. GENE M. DOMINGO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Gene Domingo, an American citizen, engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. in 2000 to handle the annulment of his cousin’s adoption and the settlement of his mother’s estate. Relying on respondent’s representations that he was acting for a reputable law firm, complainant paid substantial sums totaling nearly half a million pesos. Over time, respondent provided elaborate but false updates, including claims of filing cases, negotiating with judges and the BIR, and even securing favorable decisions from the trial court up to the Supreme Court, all requiring additional payments.
Complainant later discovered the fraud. The law firm denied any attorney-client relationship, revealing respondent had been forced to resign. Verification with the Regional Trial Court of Abra confirmed no case was ever filed. Respondent, despite notice, failed to file an answer to the disbarment complaint. He was subsequently disbarred in a separate case (A.C. No. 7054) in 2014 for similar deceitful conduct.
ISSUE
Whether the Court retains jurisdiction to discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed while still a member of the Bar, even if he was subsequently disbarred in a separate proceeding.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction and may impose a separate penalty. The Court emphasized that disbarment in a prior case does not preclude disciplinary action for other offenses committed before such disbarment. Jurisdiction over a lawyer, as an officer of the court, is continuous and exclusive. The act of disbarment merely terminates the lawyer’s privilege to practice but does not absolve him of liability for other independent violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility committed during his membership.
Here, respondent’s actions—fraudulent misrepresentation, fabrication of court proceedings, and deceit in extracting money—constituted gross misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer, violating Canons 1 and 7.03. His failure to answer the complaint constituted an admission of the allegations. While disbarment was already imposed in the prior case, the Court found a separate fine warranted for this distinct offense to underscore the gravity of his deceit and to protect the public. Accordingly, the Court fined respondent P40,000.00, payable to the Court, with a warning that non-payment would result in an additional penalty of imprisonment.