G.R. No. 153980, June 15, 2005
San Jose Homeowners Association Inc., represented by Rebecca V. Labrador, complainant, vs. Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, San Jose Homeowners Association Inc. (SJHAI), filed a disbarment petition against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for representing conflicting interests and for deceptively using the title “Judge.” Respondent had originally represented SJHAI in a case against Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) concerning a subdivision lot designated as a school site. While still counsel for SJHAI, he subsequently represented other parties with interests adverse to SJHAI: first, the Montealegre spouses who sought to purchase and develop the same lot, and later, Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for DCI in the ongoing litigation against SJHAI.
An initial disbarment case (A.C. No. 4783) was filed. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found a conflict of interest but, treating it as a first offense, recommended dismissal with an admonition for respondent to exercise greater care. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, which the Court noted in a March 8, 1999 Resolution. Despite this admonition, respondent continued to represent Durano-Rodriguez against SJHAI on appeal. Furthermore, he persistently used the title “Judge” on his letterhead and billboards, despite having been previously dismissed from the judiciary for grave misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos should be disbarred for representing conflicting interests in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for deceitfully using the title “Judge.”

RULING

Yes, respondent is disbarred. The Court found him guilty of both charges. On the first charge, respondent blatantly violated Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests. He successively represented SJHAI and then its direct adversaries, the Montealegres and Durano-Rodriguez, in the same subject matter. His defense that the IBP’s prior admonition applied only to future cases was untenable; his continued representation after being admonished demonstrated willful disregard of his ethical duties and the Court’s directive, constituting gross misconduct.
On the second charge, his use of the title “Judge” was an act of deceit and misrepresentation designed to mislead the public into believing he was still a member of the judiciary, which he was not, having been dismissed for grave misconduct. This violated Rule 1.01 of the Code, which prohibits dishonest and deceitful conduct. Considering the totality of his actions—his repeated ethical breaches, defiance of the Court’s admonition, and deceptive practice—respondent exhibited a character unfit for the legal profession. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, such gross misconduct warrants disbarment. Accordingly, Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos was disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.