QUE vs. REVILLA, Jr.

A.C. No. 7054, November 11, 2014

FACTS: The respondent Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. was disbarred from the practice of law on
December 4, 2009. Respondent was disbarred on grounds of abuse of court procedures and
processes; filing of multiple actions and forum-shopping; willful, intentional and deliberate resort
to falsehood and deception before the courts; maligning the name of his fellow lawyer; and
fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court. On July 8, 2010, respondent filed a Petition
for Judicial Clemency and Compassion, which was denied by the Court but filed an appeal on
January 11, 2011 asking the Court to review the penalty imposed upon the respondent. In his
appeal the respondent stated that the complainant Conrado Que, failed to provide a clear and
convincing evidence, and passed the blame to another individual to clear his name. Again, the
Court denied the appeal. Yet, again once more denial of the respondent’s plea on a resolution
dated August 2, 2011 by the Court, resolving the once again the same plea from the respondent
who states that he has learned his lesson but still questioning the earlier denial of his petitions
and appeals. A couple letters more were sent to the Court, stating that he has changed his ways
and has not been involved in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral activities, adding that he has
served as a Eucharistic Minister coupled along with promise that he will never again commit the
same mistakes. Still, the Court was not convinced, denying every single one. The respondent
once more, sent a letter to the Court, once again asking the Court to revisit his disbarment, in an
apologetic and regretful tone. The respondent states that the disbarment took its toll on the
respondent’s health, that he had been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease stage five (5) and
wishes to be reinstated not to practice law but for his peace of mind.

ISSUE: WON the respondent should be reinstated?

HELD: The Court ruled in the negative, stating that the membership in the Bar is not a natural,
absolute or a constitutional right. The membership to the bar is a privilege, one that is given to
individuals who are intellectual as well as morally fit. Doors are not closed for disbarred lawyers;
however, those who seek to be reinstated must prove that they have rehabilitated themselves
and there is change in character and conduct. Though the Court granted the reinstatement of
several disbarred lawyers, the Court took into consideration the number of years the lawyer has
been disbarred and the sincere acknowledge of guilt. The Court agrees that the respondent has
the morality as evidenced from his church activities, community works and service, but, it was
the second time the respondent has been found guilty of gross misconduct. The Court held that
it was still too early to consider the respondent reinstatement and due to the respondent’s
allegations, passing the blame upon other individuals in his earlier petitions, the Court is not
convinced that he achieved moral reformation in such a short amount of time. The Courts
sympathizes with the respondent’s condition, but still, sympathy should be put aside since the
duty of the Court is to see whether the respondent has achieved moral reformation and
rehabilitation.