Que v. Revilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. was disbarred by the Supreme Court on December 4, 2009, for multiple acts of professional misconduct, including abuse of court procedures, forum-shopping, deliberate falsehoods, and fraudulent appearances. This was his second major ethical infraction; he had previously been suspended for six months in Plus Builders, Inc. v. Revilla for similar acts of willful falsehood and misuse of court processes. The Court noted in the 2009 Decision that Revilla exhibited traits of incorrigibility and posed a continuing risk to the public. Procedural History: Between 2010 and 2013, Revilla filed numerous petitions for judicial clemency and reinstatement, all of which were denied by the Court En Banc. In these petitions, he variously cited humanitarian considerations, questioned the factual support of his disbarment, and attempted to shift blame to third parties. On June 4, 2013, the Court denied his motion for reconsideration with finality. The Appeal: On July 18, 2014, Revilla filed a 'Profound Appeal for Judicial Clemency.' He argued that the penalty of disbarment had severely impacted his health, noting he was diagnosed with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease and required dialysis thrice weekly. He claimed to have achieved moral reformation through service as a Lay Minister and lecturer on the legal aspects of marriage. He expressed remorse and stated he sought reinstatement not to practice law, but to find peace of mind and be 'made whole.'
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent has sufficiently demonstrated moral reformation and rehabilitation to warrant judicial clemency and reinstatement to the Philippine Bar.
Ruling
The Profound Appeal for Judicial Clemency is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the basic inquiry in reinstatement is whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated their conduct and character. Applying the criteria from Bernardo v. Mejia, the Court must consider the lawyer's character before disbarment, the nature of the charges, subsequent conduct, and the time elapsed. While the Court acknowledged Revilla's prior community service and current religious involvement, it was not convinced of his total moral reformation. The Court emphasized that this was Revilla's second major ethical violation, having previously been shown leniency in Plus Builders, Inc. v. Revilla, which he failed to appreciate. The passage of only five years since his disbarment was deemed insufficient given the 'perversity' and repetitive nature of his misdeeds. Furthermore, the Court questioned his sincerity, noting his previous attempts to shift blame to others rather than taking full responsibility. Finally, the Court clarified that while it sympathizes with his Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease, its primary duty is to protect the legal profession and the public, which necessitates proof of rehabilitation regardless of physical condition.
Main Doctrine
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, not a natural, absolute, or constitutional right. For a disbarred lawyer to be reinstated, they must demonstrate and prove by clear and convincing evidence that they have sufficiently rehabilitated their conduct and character. The Court evaluates the applicant's character prior to disbarment, the nature of the charges, subsequent conduct, and the time elapsed since disbarment. Clemency is a matter of justice to the profession and the public, not merely an act of mercy to the individual.