4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 105

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos
*
A.C. No. 5580. June 15, 2005.

SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., as represented by

REBECCA V. LABRADOR, complainant,  vs.  ATTY. ROBERTO B.
ROMANILLOS, respondent.

Attorneys; Duties; Conflict of Interest; As long as the lawyer represents inconsistent

interests of two (2) or more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his oath.—The lack
of opposition does not mean tacit consent. As long as the lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two (2) or more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his oath. Rule 15.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates that a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure. Incidentally, it is also misleading for respondent to insist that he was
exonerated in A.C. No. 4783.
Same; Same; Same; Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s faith in the legal
profession.—  Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with
conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also
known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and comport themselves
with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
public’s faith in the legal profession. To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and
respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized.
Considering that, “of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to
uphold the law,” it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who
violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the legal profession.
Same; Same; Same; Disbarment; Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary
sanction.—Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. We are mindful
that the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, for only the most
im-

_______________

* EN BANC.

106

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.

Romanillos

perative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Roque, Butuyan & Gangoso Law Offices for complainant.

PER CURIAM:

1
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171391c8c4bba32796a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
1
This is a Petition   for disbarment against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for
allegedly representing conflicting interests and for using the title “Judge”
despite having been2
found guilty of grave and serious misconduct in Zarate v.
Judge Romanillos.
The facts are as follows:
In 1985, respondent represented San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc.
(SJHAI)
3
before the Human Settlements Regulation Commission (HSRC) in a
case  against Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) for violation of the Subdivision and
Condominium Buyer’s Protection Act (P.D. No. 957). SJHAI alleged that Lot
No. 224 was designated as a school site in the subdivision plan that DCI
submitted to the Bureau of Lands in 1961 but was sold by DCI to spouses
Ramon and Beatriz Durano without disclosing it as a school site.
While still the counsel for SJHAI, respondent represented Myrna and
Antonio Montealegre in requesting for SJHAI’s conformity to construct a school
building on Lot No. 224 to be purchased from Durano.
When the request was denied, respondent applied for clearance before the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

_______________
1 Rollo,
pp. 1-14.
2 312Phil. 679; 242 SCRA 593 (1995).
3 HSRC Case No. REM-021082-0822 (NHA-80-309).

107

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 107

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos

(HLURB) in behalf of Montealegre. Petitioner’s Board of Directors terminated

respondent’s services as counsel and engaged another lawyer to represent the
association.
Respondent also acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who
substituted for DCI in  Civil Case No. 18014entitled  “San Jose Homeowners,
Inc. v. Durano and Corp., Inc.” filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 134. Thus, SJHAI filed a disbarment case against respondent for
representing conflicting
4
interests, docketed as Administrative Case No. 4783.
In her Report  dated August 3, 1998, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A.
Navarro of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) made the following findings:
. . . Respondent failed to observe candor and fairness in dealing with his clients,
knowing fully well that the Montealegre case was adverse to the Complainant wherein
he had previously been not only an active board member but its corporate secretary
having access to all its documents confidential or otherwise and its counsel in handling
the implementation of the writ of execution against its developer and owner, Durano
and Co. Inc.
Moreso, when Respondent acted as counsel for the substituted defendant Durano and
Co. Inc., Lydia Durano-Rodriguez; the conflict of interest between the latter and the
Complainant became so revealing and yet Respondent proceeded to represent the
former.
...
For his defense of good faith in doing so; inasmuch as the same wasn’t controverted
by the Complainant which was his first offense; Respondent must be given the benefit of
the doubt to rectify his error subject to the condition5 that should he commit the same in
the future; severe penalty will be imposed upon him.

_______________
4 Rollo, pp. 15-20.
5Id., at pp. 19-20.

108

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171391c8c4bba32796a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Romanillos

The Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of the complaint with

the admonition that respondent should observe extra care and diligence in the
practice of his profession to uphold its dignity and integrity beyond reproach.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, which we noted in a
resolution dated March 8, 1999.
Notwithstanding the admonition, respondent 6
continued representing
7
Lydia
Durano-Rodriguez before the Court of Appeals  and this Court  and even moved
for the execution of the decision.
Thus, a second disbarment case was filed against respondent for violation of
the March 8, 1999 Resolution in  A.C. No. 4783  and for his alleged deceitful
conduct in using the title “Judge” although he was found guilty of grave and
serious misconduct.
Respondent used the title “Judge” in his office letterhead, correspondences
and billboards which was erected in several areas within the San Jose
Subdivision sometime in October 2001. 8
In his Comment and Explanation,  respondent claimed that he continued to
represent Lydia Durano-Rodriguez against petitioner despite the March 8,
1999 Resolution because it was still pending when the second disbarment case
was filed. He maintained that the instant petition is a rehash of the first
disbarment case from which he was exonerated. Concerning the title “Judge,”
respondent stated that since the filing of the instant petition he had ceased to
attach the title to his name.

_______________
6  “San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, et
al.,” docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67844.
7  “San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, et

al.,” docketed as G.R. No. 153980.

8 Rollo, pp. 31-33.

109

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 109

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos

On July 7, 2003, the 9matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report
and recommendation.
Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. reported that
respondent did not violate the admonition because it referred to future cases
only and not to cases subject of  A.C. No. 4783. Besides, petitioner never
questioned the propriety of respondent’s continued representation of Lydia
Durano-Rodriguez on appeal until the case was terminated.
The Investigating Commissioner, however, believed that respondent was
deceitful when he used the title “Judge”, thus creating a false impression that
he was an incumbent.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended thus:

In view of the foregoing considerations, this Commissioner respectfully recommends the

following penalty range to be deliberated upon by the Board for imposition on
Respondent: minimum penalty of reprimand to a maximum penalty of four (4) months
suspension. It is further recommended that in addition to the penalty to be imposed, a
stern warning be given to Respondent in that should he violate his undertaking/promise
not to handle any case in the future where the Complainant would be the adverse party
and/or should he again use the title of “Judge” which would create an impression that he
is still connected to the judiciary, a more severe penalty shall be imposed on him by the
Commission.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

The IBP Board of Governors approved with modification the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thus:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171391c8c4bba32796a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex
“A”, and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering Respon-

_______________
9Id., at p. 46.

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos

dent’s violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Atty. Roberto Romanillos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months with a WARNING that should he violate his undertaking/promise a more severe
penalty shall be imposed against him.

Undoubtedly, respondent represented the inconsistent interests of SJHAI, DCI

as substituted by Lydia Durano-Rodriguez and the Montealegres. Respondent
was admonished yet he continued to represent Durano-Rodriguez against
SJHAI.
It is inconsequential that petitioner never questioned the propriety of
respondent’s continued representation of Lydia Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of
opposition does not mean tacit consent. As long as the lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two (2) or more opposing clients, he is guilty of
violating his oath. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
specifically mandates that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure.
Incidentally, it is also misleading for respondent to insist that he was
exonerated in A.C. No. 4783.
We agree with the IBP that respondent’s continued use of the title “Judge”
violated Rules 1.01 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in deceitful conduct and from using any
misleading statement or claim regarding qualifications or legal services. The
quasi-judicial notice he posted in the billboards referring to himself as a judge
is deceiving. It was a clear attempt to mislead the public into believing that the
order was issued in his capacity as a judge when he was dishonorably stripped
of the privilege.
Respondent did not honorably retire from the judiciary. He resigned from
being a judge during the pendency of  Zarate v. Judge Romanillos, where he
was eventually found guilty of grave and serious misconduct and would have
been dismissed from the service had he not resigned.
111

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 111

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos

In that case, respondent was found guilty of illegal solicitation and receipt of
P10,000.00 from a party litigant. We ruled thus:
Considering the foregoing, respondent Judge Roberto B. Romanillos is hereby found
guilty of grave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and honesty. He deserves
the supreme penalty of dismissal. However, respondent, in an obvious attempt to escape
punishment for his misdeeds, tendered his resignation during the pendency of this case.
. . . Consequently, we are now precluded from dismissing respondent from the service.
Nevertheless, the ruling in  People v. Valenzuela  (135 SCRA 712[1985]), wherein the
respondent judge likewise resigned before the case could be resolved, finds application
in this case. Therein it was held that the rule that the resignation or retirement of a
respondent judge in an administrative case renders the case moot and academic, is not a
hard and fast rule . . . .
...
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171391c8c4bba32796a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

“ACCORDINGLY, in view of our aforestated finding that respondent Judge

Romanillos is guilty of grave and serious misconduct which would have warranted his
dismissal from the service had he not resigned during the pendency of this case, and it
appearing that respondent has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other
privileges if any; the Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Valenzuela
(supra.), hereby orders the FORFEITURE of all leave and retirement benefits and
privileges to which herein respondent Judge Romanillos may be entitled WITH
PREJUDICE to reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of
government, including
10
government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.
SO ORDERED.”

The penalty imposed upon him in said case included forfeiture of all leave and
retirement benefits and privileges to which he may be entitled with prejudice to
reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of
government, including government-owned or controlled agen-

_______________
10 Supra, note 2, pp. 692-693.

112

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos

cies or corporations. Certainly, the use of the title ‘Judge’ is one of such
privileges.
We have previously declared that the use of titles such as “Justice” is
reserved to incumbent and retired members of the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan and may not be used by11 any other official of
the Republic, including those given the rank of “Justice.” By analogy, the title
“Judge” should be reserved only to judges, incumbent and retired, and not to
those who were dishonorably discharged from the service. As correctly pointed
out by the Investigating Commissioner, the right to retain and use said title
applies only to the aforementioned members of the bench and no other, and
certainly not to those who were removed or dismissed from the judiciary, such
as respondent.
Membership
12
in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with
conditions.  It is bestowed upon individuals who are 13
not only learned in law,
but also known to possess good moral character.   Lawyers should act and
comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner 14
beyond reproach,
in order to promote the public’s faith in the legal profession.
To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state
the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering
that, “of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to
uphold the law,” it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly,

_______________
11 JBC No. 001: Re JBC Emoluments, July 20, 1989.
12 Laov. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, 1 July 2003, 405 SCRA 227, 235; Eustaquio v. Rimorin, A.C. No.
5081, 24 March 2003, 399 SCRA 422, 429; Sebastian v. Atty. Calis, 372 Phil. 673, 681; 314 SCRA 1,
8; Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., Adm. Case No. 3248, 18 September 1992, 214 SCRA 1, 16.
13 Ernesto L. Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics (1999), p. 22.
14 Malecdan v. Pekas, A.C. No. 5830, 26 January 2004, 421 SCRA 7, 21; Rivera v. Corral, Adm.

Case No. 3548, 4 July 2002, 384 SCRA 1, 11.

113

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 113

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos

lawyers who violate 15their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in
the legal profession.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171391c8c4bba32796a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. We are mindful

that the power to disbar must16 always be exercised with great caution, for only
the most imperative reasons,   and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the
standing and moral17 character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a
member of the bar.
This is not respondent’s first infraction as an officer of the court and a
member of the legal profession. He was stripped18of his retirement benefits and
other privileges in  Zarate v. Judge Romanillos.   In  A.C. No. 4783, he got off
lightly with just an admonition. Considering his previous infractions,
respondent should have adhered to the tenets of his profession with extra
fervor and vigilance. He did not. On the contrary, he manifested undue
disrespect to our mandate and exhibited a propensity to violate the laws. He is
thus unfit to discharge the duties of his office and unworthy of the trust and
confidence reposed on him as an officer of the court. His disbarment is
consequently warranted.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor.—A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly

_______________
15 De Guzman v. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943, 26 January 2001, 350 SCRA 320, 326.
16 De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554, 558 (1939).
17 Montano v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines, A.C. No. 4215, 21 May 2001, 358 SCRA 1, 10.
18 In National Bureau of Investigation v. Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120, 21 February 2000, 326 SCRA 109,
respondent judge therein was found guilty of bribery. He was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service
and further disbarred from the practice of law.

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. vs.
Romanillos

immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or

for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or
for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos is DISBARRED and

his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of
this Decision be entered in respondent’s record as a member of the Bar, and
notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr.  (C.J.),  Puno,  Panganiban,  Quisumbing,Ynares-

Santiago,  Sandoval-Gutierrez,  Carpio,  Austria-Martinez,  Corona,  Carpio-
Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna,Tinga, Chico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos is disbarred.

Note.—The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a

ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. (De Guzman
vs. De Dios, 350 SCRA 320 [2001])

——o0o——

115

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171391c8c4bba32796a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171391c8c4bba32796a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7