277) Que v. Revilla, AC No.

7054, 11 Nov 2014 (Caro)

Complainant: Conrado Que
Respondent: Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.
Petition for reinstatement
Facts:

[Background] The SC disbarred Revilla for:

o abuse of court procedures and processes;
o filing of multiple actions and forum-shopping;
o willful, intentional and deliberate resort to falsehood and deception
before the courts;
o maligning the name of his fellow lawyer; and
o fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court
originally, the IBP recommended suspension for 1 year but SC found this
punishment to be too lenient considering the multiple ethical infractions
committed by Revilla.
8 July 2010, Revilla filed a petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion,
praying to have his license restored based on humanitarian considerations
DENIED
11 Jan 2011, he filed an Appeal for Grace, Succor, and Mercy asking the
Court to reconsider the penalty imposed. He argued that Que failed to
provide clear and convincing evidence what merited his disbarment
DENIED
13 Jul 2011, he reiterated his pleas for the Courts compassion and mercy,
stating that he learned his lesson DENIED
17 May 2012, he sent a letter, asking once again for reinstatement
DENIED
He filed 4 more petitions/appeals, claiming that
o he has since never been involved in any immoral/illegal activities,
o he has devoted himself to religious worship
o he promises to maintain the a high degree of morality and ethics if
reinstated

he pleaded for clemency, not because he intended to practice law again, but
for peace of mind, and to be made whole after being shattered.

Issue: W/N Respondent should be reinstated?

Held: NO. The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement is whether the lawyer has
sufficiently rehabilitated himself or herself in conduct and character. The lawyer has
to demonstrate and prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is again
worthy of membership in the Bar. The Court takes into consideration the character
and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for
which he or she was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and
the time that has elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement.
In this case, Revilla demonstrated active participation in community and church
activities and that he has long expressed deep remorse and genuine repentance.
However,whiletheSCbelievesthatRevilladoesnotinherentlylackmoralfiber,
theywerenotconvincedthathehadsufficientlyachievedmoralreformation.
Inpreviouscases,SCconsideredthe
(1)conductofthedisbarredattorneybeforeandafterdisbarment,
(2) the time that had elapsed from the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement,andmoreimportantly,
(3)thedisbarredattorneyssincererealizationandacknowledgementofguilt.
Inthepresentcase,wearenotfullyconvincedthatthepassageofmorethan4is
sufficient to enable the respondent to reflect and to realize his professional
transgressions.Hehasfailedtoshowbyclearandconvincingevidencethatheis
dulyreformed.
WHEREFORE,theProfoundAppealforJudicialClemencyisDENIED.