EN BANC

[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.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

This is a Petition 1 for disbarment against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for allegedly
representing con icting interests and for using the title "Judge" despite having been found
guilty of grave and serious misconduct in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos. 2
The facts are as follows:
In 1985, respondent represented San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. (SJHAI)
before the Human Settlements Regulation Commission (HSRC) in a case 3 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 (HLURB) in behalf of Montealegre. Petitioner's Board of
Directors terminated respondent's services as counsel and engaged another lawyer to
represent the association. DEScaT

Respondent also acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for
DCI in Civil Case No. 18014 entitled "San Jose Homeowners, Inc. v. Durano and Corp ., Inc."
led before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134. Thus, SJHAI led a
disbarment case against respondent for representing con icting interests, docketed as
Administrative Case No. 4783. iatdc2005

In her Report 4 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 con dential or
otherwise and its counsel in handling the implementation of the writ of execution
against its developer and owner, Durano and Co. Inc.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Moreso, when Respondent acted as counsel for the substituted defendant
Durano and Co. Inc., Lydia Durano-Rodriguez; the con ict of interest between the
latter and the Complainant became so revealing and yet Respondent proceeded to
represent the former.

xxx xxx xxx

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 bene t of the doubt to rectify his error subject to the condition that
should he commit the same in the future; severe penalty will be imposed upon
him. 5

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 continued representing Lydia Durano-
Rodriguez before the Court of Appeals 6 and this Court 7 and even moved for the execution
of the decision.
Thus, a second disbarment case was led 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 o ce letterhead, correspondences and
billboards which was erected in several areas within the San Jose Subdivision sometime in
October 2001.
In his Comment and Explanation, 8 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 led. He maintained
that the instant petition is a rehash of the rst disbarment case from which he was
exonerated. Concerning the title "Judge", respondent stated that since the ling of the
instant petition he had ceased to attach the title to his name. CaAcSE

On July 7, 2003, the matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. 9
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 modi cation the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, with modi cation , the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A", and, nding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
Respondent'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. SDEHIa

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 speci cally mandates that a lawyer shall not represent
con icting 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
quali cations 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. AIDTSE

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.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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, nds 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. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
ACCORDINGLY, in view of our aforestated nding 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
bene ts and other privileges if any; the Court, consistent with the penalties
imposed in Valenzuela (supra.), hereby orders the FORFEITURE of all leave and
retirement bene ts 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 government-owned or
controlled agencies or corporations.

SO ORDERED. 1 0

The penalty imposed upon him in said case included forfeiture of all leave and
retirement bene ts 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 agencies 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 by any other o cial of the Republic, including those
given the rank of "Justice". 1 1 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. HIETAc

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.

1 2 It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to
possess good moral character. 1 3 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. 1 4
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. 1 5
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 imperative
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 reasons, 1 6 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. 1 7
This is not respondent's rst infraction as an o cer of the court and a member of
the legal profession. He was stripped of his retirement bene ts and other privileges in
Zarate v. Judge Romanillos. 1 8 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
un t to discharge the duties of his o ce and unworthy of the trust and con dence
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
o ce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such o ce, grossly 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 willful
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 O ce of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts in the country. IaEACT

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.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 1-14.

2. 312 Phil. 679 (1995).

3. HSRC Case No. REM-021082-0822 (NHA-80-309).

4. Rollo, pp. 15-20.
5. Id. at 19-20.
6. "SJHAI v. HLURB, et al.," docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67844.
7. "SJHAI v. HLURB, et al.," docketed as G.R. No. 153980.

8. Rollo, pp. 31-33.

9. Id. at 46.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 10. Supra, note 2, pp. 692-693.
11. JBC No. 001: Re JBC Emoluments, July 20, 1989.
12. Lao v. 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; 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.

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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com