A.C. No. 5473. July 3, 2018.

GENE M. DOMINGO, complainant, vs. ATTY.

ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., respondent.

Administrative Cases; Mitigating Circumstances; In Arganosa-

Maniego v. Salinas, 590 SCRA 531 (2009), the Supreme Court
(SC) observed that: [I]n several administrative cases, the Court has
re-

_______________

*** Designated Senior Associate Justice per Section 12, Republic Act
No. 296, The Judiciary Act of 1948, as Amended.
* EN BANC.

425

VOL. 869, JULY 3, 2018 425

Domingo vs. Revilla, Jr.

frained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of

mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondentÊs length of service, the
respondentÊs acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of
remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, respondentÊs advanced age, among other things, have had
varying significance in the CourtÊs determination of the imposable
penalty.·In Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, 590 SCRA 531 (2009), the
Court observed that: [I]n several administrative cases, the Court has
refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of
mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondentÊs length of service, the
respondentÊs acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of
remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, respondentÊs advanced age, among other things, have had
varying significance in the CourtÊs determination of the imposable
penalty. The compassion extended by the Court in these cases was not
without legal basis. Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grants the disciplining
authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the
imposition of the proper penalty. The court has also ruled that where a
penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed
by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not
only for the laws concern for the workingman; there is, in addition, his
family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows
on those dependent on wage earners. Considering the foregoing, the
Court finds and considers the justifications of the respondent sufficient to
warrant the reduction of the fine imposed upon him.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Motion

to Reduce Fine.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Gumpal, Ruiz, Valenzuela & Associates for complainant.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

On January 23, 2018, the Court promulgated its decision

finding respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. guilty of
violating

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domingo vs. Revilla, Jr.

the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud

against the complainant who was his client, disposing:

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND DECLARES

ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR. GUILTY of violating
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon 15, and
Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, but, in view of his continuing disbarment,
hereby METES the penalty of FINE of P100,000.00.
 The decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to: (a) the Office of
the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts
throughout the country for their information and guidance;
(b) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (c) the Office of
the Bar Confidant to be appended to the respondentÊs
personal record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.1

The respondent now seeks the reduction of his fine from

P100,000.00 to P50,000.00. He avers in justification that he
has been in financial constraints since his disbarment
handed down on December 4, 2009 in A.C. No. 7054 prior
to the promulgation of the decision herein; that he has also
been suffering from chronic kidney disease that
necessitates dialysis treatments thrice a week; that his
disbarment cost him his only source of livelihood; and that
he has candidly acknowledged his ethical sins without
qualification, manifesting his sincere feeling of remorse.
In Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas,2 the Court observed
that:

[I]n several administrative cases, the Court has refrained

from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of
mitigating factors. Factors such as the respon-

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 422.
2 A.M. No. P-07-2400, June 23, 2009, 590 SCRA 531, 544-547.

427

VOL. 869, JULY 3, 2018 427

Domingo vs. Revilla, Jr.

dentÊs length of service, the respondentÊs acknowledgement of

his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family
circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations,
respondentÊs advanced age, among other things, have had
varying significance in the CourtÊs determination of the
imposable penalty.
 The compassion extended by the Court in these cases was
not without legal basis. Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider
mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper
penalty.
The court has also ruled that where a penalty less punitive
would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor
ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not
only for the laws concern for the workingman; there is, in
addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold
hardships and sorrows on those dependent on wage earners.

Considering the foregoing, the Court finds and considers

the justifications of the respondent sufficient to warrant
the reduction of the fine imposed upon him.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS respondent
Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.Ês motion to reduce the penalty of
fine, and, accordingly, REDUCES his penalty to a fine of
P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio,** Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del

Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa,
Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., I vote to reduce the fine to P10,000.00.

_______________

** Designated Acting Chief Justice.

428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domingo vs. Revilla, Jr.

Petition granted.

Notes.·The Supreme Court considered length of service in the

judiciary, acknowledgement of infractions, remorse and family
circumstances, among others, in determining the applicable penalty.
(Fuentes vs. Fabro, 696 SCRA 606 [2013])
 Factors such as the respondentÊs length of service, the
respondentÊs acknowledgement of his or her infractions and
feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian
and equitable considerations, respondentÊs advanced age,
among other things, have had varying significance in the
CourtÊs determination of the imposable penalty. (Areola vs.
Mendoza, 713 SCRA 173 [2014])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.