20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

 
G.R. No. 210554. August 5, 2015.*
 
DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU,
VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO
YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, and SIN
CHIAO YU LIM, petitioners, vs. ATTY. WALTER T.
YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO
GAMBOL, and ATTY. DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT,
practicing law under the Firm name, Young Revilla
Gambol & Magat, and JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO,
Presiding Judge of Branch 211 of the Regional Trial Court,
Mandaluyong City, respondents.

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; Words and

Phrases; The Supreme Court (SC) has defined contempt of court
as: a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority.—This
court has defined contempt of court as: a willful disregard or
disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is
a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a
legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by
disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near
thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due
to such a body. In its restricted

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 
411

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 411

Kimteng vs. Young

and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of

the authority, justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of
court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety
of different acts. (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) In
this case, respondents committed acts that are considered indirect
contempt under Section 3 of Rule 71. In addition, respondents
disregarded the Code of Professional Responsibility when they

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

retained the name of respondent Revilla in their firm name.

Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states: Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name,
no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that
said partner is deceased.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Firm Name; Maintaining a disbarred
lawyer’s name in the firm name is different from using a deceased
partner’s name in the firm name.—Maintaining a disbarred
lawyer’s name in the firm name is different from using a deceased
partner’s name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the
use of a deceased partner’s name as long as there is an indication
that the partner is deceased. This ensures that the public is not
misled. On the other hand, the retention of a disbarred lawyer’s
name in the firm name may mislead the public into believing that
the lawyer is still authorized to practice law. The use of a
deceased partner’s name in the firm name was the issue in the
consolidated cases Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the
Firm Name “Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo” and
In the matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the
Firm Name “Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes, 92
SCRA 1 (1979).” Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to
continue including Atty. Alexander Sycip’s and Atty. Herminio
Ozaeta’s names in their firm names. This court denied the
petitions, explaining that there is a possibility of deception in the
use of a deceased partner’s name. Also, Article 1815 of the Civil
Code shows that the partners in a partnership should be “living
persons who can be subjected to liability.” Further, the use of a
deceased partner’s name is not a custom in the Philippines. On
the contrary, the local custom shows that the firm name usually
identifies the senior members or partners of a law firm.
Same; Same; Same; Contempt of Court; The Supreme Court
(SC) has ruled that the use of the name of a person who is not
authorized to practice law constitutes contempt of court.—The use
of a de­

 
 
412

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

ceased partner’s name in a law firm’s name was allowed upon

the effectivity of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with the
requirement that “the firm indicates in all its communications
that said partner is deceased.” On the other hand, this court has
ruled that the use of the name of a person who is not authorized
to practice law constitutes contempt of court.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Forum Shopping; The filing

of a Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) and the filing of this Petition for contempt under
Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping.—As to the allegation of
forum shopping, petitioners do not deny that they filed a
Complaint for disbarment. They argue, however, that they did not
mention the disbarment proceedings against respondents in view
of Rule 139­B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which states that
disbarment proceedings are private and confidential. In addition,
a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a Complaint for
disbarment are different from each other. The filing of a
Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the filing of this Petition for contempt under Rule
71 do not constitute forum shopping. Forum shopping has been
defined as: when a party repetitively avails of several judicial
remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially
the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court. The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity
of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests
in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity
of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Contempt

of Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Balgos, Gumaru, Faller, Tan & Javier for petitioners.

 
 
413

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 413

Kimteng vs. Young

LEONEN, J.:
 
A disbarred lawyer’s name cannot be part of a firm’s
name. A lawyer who appears under a firm name that
contains a disbarred lawyer’s name commits indirect
contempt of court.
Through this Petition,1 petitioners ask that law firm,
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo
(Judge Calo), be cited in contempt of court under Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court.2 Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (Revilla) was
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

disbarred on December 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of

this court in A.C. No. 7054 entitled Que v. Atty. Revilla,
Jr.3
David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. Yu, Winnie L. Yu, Vivian L.
Yu, Rosa Gan, Lilian Chua Woo Yukimteng, Santos Yu,
Marcelo Yu, and Sin Chiao Yu Lim are the majority
stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation.4
In Majority Stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation
v. Lim, et al.,5 this court ordered the liquidation of Ruby
Industrial Corporation and transferred the case to the
appropriate Regional Trial Court branch to supervise the
liquidation.6
 
The liquidation was raffled to Branch 211 of the
Regional Trial Court in Mandaluyong City,7 presided by
Judge Calo.8
Walter T. Young (Atty. Young), Jovito Gambol (Atty.
Gambol), and Dan Reynald Magat (Atty. Magat) are
lawyers practicing under the firm, Young Revilla Gambol &
Magat.9 They

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 3­16.

2  Id., at p. 13.
3  622 Phil. 1; 607 SCRA 1 (2009) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
4  Rollo, p. 3.
5   665 Phil. 600; 650 SCRA 461 (2011) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third
Division].
6  Id., at p. 657; p. 523.
7  Rollo, p. 7.
8  Id., at p. 4.
9  Id.

 
 
414

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

entered their appearance in the liquidation proceedings as

counsels for the liquidator.10
An Opposition11 was filed against the appearance of
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat on the ground that Revilla
was already disbarred in 2009.12
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply13 to the
Opposition stating that the firm opted to retain Revilla’s
name in the firm name even after he had been disbarred,
with the retention serving as an act of charity.14

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

Judge Calo overruled the opposition to the appearance of

Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and stated that Atty.
Young could still appear for the liquidator as long as his
appearance was under the Young Law Firm and not under
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat.15 Young Law Firm does
not exist.
Thus, petitioners David Yu Kimteng, Mary L. Yu,
Winnie L. Yu, Vivian L. Yu, Rosa Gan, Lilian Chua Woo
Yukimteng, Santos Yu, Marcelo Yu, and Sin Chiao Yu Lim
filed this Petition under Rule 71 to cite respondents Atty.
Walter T. Young, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Atty. Jovito
Gambol, Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat, and Judge Ofelia L.
Calo in contempt.
This court required respondents to comment on the
Petition.16 Respondent law firm Young Revilla Gambol &
Magat filed its Comment17 on April 14, 2014, while
respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment.18

_______________

10  Id., at p. 7.
11  Id., at pp. 22­26.
12  Id., at pp. 7 and 22.
13  Id., at pp. 27­33.
14  Id., at pp. 8 and 28.
15  Id., at pp. 8­9.
16  Id., at p. 56. The Resolution was dated February 24, 2014.
17  Id., at pp. 57­68.
18  Id., at pp. 70­84.

 
 
415

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 415

Kimteng vs. Young

On April 16, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to

File Consolidated Reply.19 This was granted in the
Resolution20 dated June 18, 2014. In the same Resolution,
this court denied petitioners’ Motion to Consider Case
Submitted without Comment from [Judge Calo]21 and
ordered the parties to await Judge Calo’s comment.22
Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a
Manifestation,23 informing this court that they have yet to
receive a copy of Judge Calo’s Comment.24 No Comment
was filed by Judge Calo.
 
I
 

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

Petitioners cite San Luis v. Pineda25 and United States

v. Ney, et al.26 to support their argument that the use of a
disbarred lawyer’s name in the firm name is tantamount to
contempt of court.27
Private Respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat
counter that they maintained Revilla’s name in the firm
name for sentimental reasons.28
Atty. Young and Atty. Magat explained that they did not
intend to deceive the public29 and that in any case, the
retention of Revilla’s name “does not give added value to
the [law firm] nor does it enhance the standing of the
member lawyers thereof.”30

_______________

19  Id., at pp. 202­204.

20  Id., at p. 223.
21  Id., at pp. 217­220.
22  Id., at p. 223.
23  Id., at pp. 229­233.
24  Id., at p. 229.
25  121 Phil. 419; 13 SCRA 441 (1965) [Per CJ. Bengzon, En Banc].
26  8 Phil. 146 (1907) [Per J. Tracey, En Banc].
27  Rollo, pp. 9­12.
28  Id., at p. 60.
29  Id., at pp. 59­60.
30  Id., at p. 59.

 
 
416

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

They further argue that:

The non­deletion of [Anastacio E. Revilla’s] name in the Young

Law Firm’s name is no more misleading than including the names
of dead or retired partners in a law firm’s name. It is more for
sentimental reasons. It is a fraternal expression to a former
brother in the profession that the Private Respondents fully
understand, his [referring to Revilla] principled albeit quixotic
advocacy.31

 
Private respondents point out that the Balgos Law Firm
is derailing the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation
by filing this Petition for contempt because the Balgos Law
Firm resents that its nominee was not elected as
liquidator.32 Private respondents add that petitioners have
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

continuously blocked Ruby Industrial Corporation’s

unsecured creditors from obtaining relief, as shown by the
number of times that Ruby Industrial Corporation’s cases
have reached this court.33
Private respondents also raise the issue of forum
shopping in their Comment because petitioners allegedly
filed a disbarment Complaint against them before the
Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. One of the grounds for disbarment cited by
petitioners was the use of Revilla’s name in their firm
name.34
Private respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate
Comment,35 arguing that from the time Revilla was
disbarred, he no longer practiced law.36
Private respondent Atty. Gambol stated that he passed
the 1990 Bar Examination but took his oath in July 2006.37
He is

_______________

31  Id., at p. 60.
32  Id., at p. 62.
33  Id.
34  Id., at p. 58.
35  Id., at pp. 70­84.
36  Id., at p. 72.
37  Id., at p. 73.

 
 

417

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 417

Kimteng vs. Young

a junior member of the Young Revilla Magat & Gambol law

firm and “has no power and/or authority [to decide] who
should be removed from the firm’s name[.]”38
Private respondent Atty. Gambol argues that in all the
cases he handled after Revilla’s disbarment, he omitted
Revilla’s name from the firm name in the pleadings that he
signed. Such deletion was through his own initiative.39
Petitioners filed their Reply,40 with petitioners
addressing respondents’ allegations that they remained
silent on the disbarment case they had filed by citing Rule
139­B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court,41 which provides
that:

Rule 139­B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

....

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

Section 18. Confidentiality.—Proceedings against attorneys

shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the
Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.

 
Petitioners argue that liability for contempt is separate
from disciplinary action; hence, no forum shopping was
committed.42
Petitioners did not address private respondents’
allegations regarding the delay in the liquidation of Ruby
Industrial Corporation.
The issues in this case are:
First, whether private respondents Atty. Walter T.
Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R.
Magat are in contempt of court when they continued to use
respondent An­

_______________

38  Id.
39  Id., at pp. 73­74..
40  Id., at pp. 205­212.
41  Id., at p. 207.
42  Id.

 
 
418

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

astacio E. Revilla, Jr.’s name in their firm name even after

his disbarment;
Second, whether private respondents Atty. Walter T.
Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R.
Magat are in contempt of court for deliberately allowing a
disbarred lawyer to engage in the practice of law;
Third, whether private respondent Anastacio E. Revilla,
Jr. is in contempt of court for continuing to practice law
even after disbarment;
Fourth, whether public respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo
is in contempt of court when she held that respondent Atty.
Walter T. Young can appear in court as long as it is under
the Young Law Firm, which is a nonexistent firm; and
Lastly, whether the filing of this Petition despite the
pendency of a disbarment complaint before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines constitutes forum shopping.
 
II
 
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

provides:

SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after

charge and hearing.—After charge in writing has been
filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to
comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the
court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty
of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
performance of his official duties or in his official
transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a
person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any
real property by the judgment or process of any court of
competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces

 
419

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 419

Kimteng vs. Young

another to enter into or upon such real property, for the

purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in
any manner disturbs the possession given to the person
adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct
contempt under Section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly,
to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court,
and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or
property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or
process of a court held by him. (Emphasis supplied)
This court has defined contempt of court as:
a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority.
In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or
disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or
judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by
disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or
so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the
respect due to such a body. In its restricted and more usual
sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority,
justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of court is
generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety of
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

different acts.43 (Emphasis in the original, citations

omitted)

 
In this case, respondents committed acts that are
considered indirect contempt under Section 3 of Rule 71. In
addi­

_______________

43   Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution Management

Association of the Philippines, 672 Phil. 1, 10; 656 SCRA 331, 342­343
(2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

 
 
420

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

tion, respondents disregarded the Code of Professional

Responsibility when they retained the name of respondent
Revilla in their firm name.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:

Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading

or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of
a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates
in all its communications that said partner is deceased.

 
Respondents argue that the use of respondent Revilla’s
name is “no more misleading than including the names of
dead or retired partners in a law firm’s name.”44
 
III
 
Maintaining a disbarred lawyer’s name in the firm name
is different from using a deceased partner’s name in the
firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the use of a deceased
partner’s name as long as there is an indication that the
partner is deceased. This ensures that the public is not
misled. On the other hand, the retention of a disbarred
lawyer’s name in the firm name may mislead the public
into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice
law.
The use of a deceased partner’s name in the firm name
was the issue in the consolidated cases Petition for
Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name “Sycip,
Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo” and In the

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the

Firm Name “Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta &
Reyes.”45 Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to
continue including Atty. Alexander Sycip’s and

_______________

44  Rollo, p. 60.
45   180 Phil. 250; 92 SCRA 1 (1979) [Per J. Melencio­Herrera, En
Banc].

 
 
421

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 421

Kimteng vs. Young

Atty. Herminio Ozaeta’s names in their firm names.46 This

court denied the petitions, explaining that there is a
possibility of deception in the use of a deceased partner’s
name.47 Also, Article 1815 of the Civil Code48 shows that
the partners in a partnership should be “living persons who
can be subjected to liability.”49 Further, the use of a
deceased partner’s name is not a custom in the
Philippines.50 On the contrary, the local custom shows that
the firm name usually identifies the senior members or
partners of a law firm.51 Justice Aquino dissented, stating
that:

I am of the opinion that the petition may be granted with the

condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the two firms
(as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, former Justice Ozaeta
and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the period when they served as
partners should be stated therein.
Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of
the names of their deceased founders is to retain the clients who
had customarily sought the legal services of Attorneys Sycip and
Ozaeta and to benefit from the goodwill attached to the names of
those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a
legitimate motivation.
The retention of their names is not illegal per se. That practice
was followed before the war by the law firm

_______________

46  Id., at pp. 253­254; p. 15.

47  Id., at pp. 261­263; p. 11.
48  Civil Code, Art. 1815 provides:
ARTICLE 1815. Every partnership shall operate under a firm name,
which may or may not include the name of one or more of the partners.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

Those who, not being members of the partnership, include their names
in the firm name, shall be subject to the liability of a partner.
49   Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name “Sycip,
Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo,” supra note 45 at p. 257; p. 7.
50  Id., at p. 260; p. 11.
51  Id.

 
 

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

of James Ross. Notwithstanding the death of Judge Ross,

the founder of the law firm of Ross, Lawrence, Selph and
Carrascoso, his name was retained in the firm name with
an indication of the year when he died. No one complained
that the retention of the name of Judge Ross in the firm
name was illegal or unethical.52
The use of a deceased partner’s name in a law firm’s
name was allowed upon the effectivity of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, with the requirement that “the
firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is
deceased.”53
On the other hand, this court has ruled that the use of
the name of a person who is not authorized to practice law
constitutes contempt of court.
In San Luis v. Pineda, this court has held that
“[n]eedless to say, [the] practice of law by one who is
disbarred constitutes contempt of court.”54 United States v.
Ney, et al. involved J. Garcia Bosque who was denied
admission to the bar because he chose to remain a Spanish
subject during the cession of the Philippines under the
Treaty of Paris.55 Bosque entered into an arrangement
with Ney, a practicing attorney, and established “Ney &
Bosque.”56 Bosque did not personally appear in courts but
the papers of their office were signed “Ney and Bosque­
C.W. Ney, Abogado.”57 The matter was referred to the then
Attorney­General, and contempt proceedings were insti­

_______________

52  J. Aquino, Dissenting Opinion in Petition for Authority to Continue

Use of the Firm Name “Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo,”
id., at pp. 264­265; p. 16. Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, and
Antonio joined the dissent of Associate Justice Aquino.
53  Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 3, Rule 3.02.
54  San Luis v. Pineda, supra note 25 at p. 420; p. 442.
55   United States v. Ney, supra note 26, citing In re Bosque, 1 Phil.
(1902) [Per CJ. Arellano, En Banc].
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

56  Id., at pp. 146­147.

57  Id., at p. 147.

 
 
423

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 423

Kimteng vs. Young

tuted.58 At that time, Section 232 of the Code of Civil

Procedure defined contempt of court as:

1. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,

order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by
a court or judge;
2. Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of
his official duties or in his official transactions.59

This court found that Atty. Ney was in contempt of court

and held that:

Under the second subdivision of [Section 232], Bosque is

obviously not answerable, inasmuch as he was not an officer of
the court. On the other hand, under this subdivision, the
defendant Ney, as an admitted attorney, is liable if his conduct
amounted to misbehavior. We are of the opinion that it did. In the
offense of Bosque in holding himself out as a general practitioner
Ney participated, and for the improper signature of the pleadings
he was chiefly and personally responsible.60

In Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal­Tenorio,61 Atty. Ana Luz B.

Cristal­Tenorio used a letterhead indicating that Felicisimo
Tenorio, Jr. was a senior partner in the Cristal­Tenorio
Law Office when, in fact, he was not a lawyer.62 This court
held that:

A lawyer who allows a nonmember of the Bar to misrepresent

himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating
Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which read as follows:

_______________

58  Id.
59  Id., at p. 148.
60  Id., at p. 149.
61   478 Phil. 378; 434 SCRA 288 (2004) [Per CJ. Davide, Jr., First
Division].
62  Id., at pp. 384­385; p. 295.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

 
 

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the

unauthorized practice of law.
Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
The term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually
holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a
source of livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding
one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that
purpose like identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in
representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a
law office for the general practice of law. Such acts constitute
unauthorized practice of law.
....
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist
in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest
and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be
limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an
individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to
maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The
purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar
from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to
practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the
Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is
attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him
not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in
aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by,
any agency, personal or corporate. And the law makes it a
misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a
layman in the unauthorized practice of law.63 (Citations omitted)

_______________

63  Id., at pp. 387­389; pp. 295­296.

 
 

425

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 425

Kimteng vs. Young
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

From the time respondent Revilla was disbarred in

2009, it appears that no efforts were exerted to remove his
name from the firm name. Thus, respondents Atty. Young
and Atty. Magat are held liable for contempt of court.
Rule 71, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides for the imposable penalties for indirect contempt:

SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt.—If the

respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed
against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher
rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand
pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he
is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a lower court,
he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the
contempt consists in the violation of a writ of injunction,
temporary restraining order or status quo order, he may also be
ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by such
violation of the property involved or such amount as may be
alleged and proved.
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall issue
for the enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine unless the
court otherwise provides. (Emphasis supplied)

 
In view of Rule 71, Section 7, a fine of P30,000.00 each is
imposed on respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat.
 
IV
 
Respondent Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment,
explaining that he dropped respondent Revilla’s name from
the firm name in the pleadings that he filed in several
courts. Respondent Atty. Gambol’s explanation is
supported by the allegations in the Comment filed by
respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat stating:
 
 

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

In fact, when co­Private Respondent Gambol, initially cowed

perhaps, by the same intimidation worked upon him by the
Complainants’ counsel in another case, asked permission to delete
[Anastacio E. Revilla’s] name in the Young Law Firm’s name in
the pleadings that he (i.e., Private Respondent Gambol) would
subsequently file, Respondent Young allowed him to do so.64

 
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

This court recognizes respondent Atty. Gambol’s effort to

avoid misleading the public by removing respondent
Revilla’s name in the pleadings he filed. Thus, the
Complaint against him is dismissed.
Petitioners included Revilla as a respondent, but they
did not serve copies of the Petition and subsequent
pleadings upon him. Respondent Revilla also did not
receive a copy of this court’s Resolution requiring
respondents to comment. Thus, this court shall refrain
from ruling upon respondent Revilla’s liability.
 
V
 
With regard to respondent Judge Calo, petitioners pray
that she be cited in contempt for allowing respondent Atty.
Young’s appearance as long as it was under the Young Law
Firm. A photocopy of the Order65 was attached to the
Petition. A portion of Judge Calo’s Order states:
Although this court grants the appearance of Atty.
Walter Young for the Liquidator, his appearance however
shall be allowed only if in the name of the Young Law
Firm, managed by the said counsel, and not under the
name of the Law Firm of Young Revilla Gambol and Ma­

_______________

64  Rollo, p. 60.
65   Id., at pp. 34­46. The Joint Order, dated December 5, 2013 and
docketed as SEC CASE No. MC 12­133 and MC 12­134, was entitled In re:
Involuntary Liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation.

 
 
427

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 427

Kimteng vs. Young

gat. This is to avoid any misconception that a disbarred

lawyer, Revilla, continues to practice law.66
Petitioners argue that respondent Judge Calo’s Order is
an indirect violation of “the proscription against the
participation of . . . disbarred lawyer[s]”67 in court. Further,
the Young Law Firm does not exist.68
Respondent Judge Calo was required to file a Comment
on the Resolution69 dated February 24, 2014, but she did
not comply.
From petitioners’ allegations, it appears that respondent
Judge Calo committed an error in judgment when she
allowed respondent Atty. Young’s appearance under the
Young Law Firm. However, this Petition to cite respondent
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

Judge Calo in contempt is not the proper remedy. Maylas,

Jr. v. Judge Sese70 discussed the remedies available to
litigants as follows:

[T]he law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or

irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or
irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e.,
error in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction
or application of procedural or substantive law or legal principle)
include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of a
judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The
extraordinary remedies against error or irregularities which may
be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical, capricious,
despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter alia
the special civil actions of certiorari,

_______________

67  Id., at p. 13.
68  Id.
69  Id., at p. 56.
70  529 Phil. 594; 497 SCRA 602 (2006) [Per J. Ynares­Santiago, First
Division].

 
 
428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition for

change of venue, as the case may be.
Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary
proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not
complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these
judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to
and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of
judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are
prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons
of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or
criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies
have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken
with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or
administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed.71
(Citation omitted)

 
Whether petitioners availed themselves of judicial
remedies was not stated in their Petition. Nevertheless,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

this court cannot ignore the possible effect of respondent

Judge Calo’s Order. Thus, the Complaint against
respondent Judge Calo shall be re­docketed as an
administrative matter. Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution provides:

SECTION 11. . . . The Supreme Court En Banc shall have

the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.

Also, Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of the

Supreme Court72 provides that the administrative
functions of this court include “disciplinary and
administrative matters involving justices, judges, and court
personnel[.]”

_______________

71  Id., at pp. 598­599; pp. 606­607.

72  A.M. No. 10­4­20­SC, as amended by the Resolution dated August 3,
2010.

 
 

429

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 429

Kimteng vs. Young

VI
 
As to the allegation of forum shopping, petitioners do not
deny that they filed a Complaint for disbarment. They
argue, however, that they did not mention the disbarment
proceedings against respondents in view of Rule 139­B,
Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which states that
disbarment proceedings are private and confidential.73 In
addition, a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a
Complaint for disbarment are different from each other.
The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the filing of this
Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute
forum shopping. Forum shopping has been defined as:

when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in

different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts
and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other

court.74

 
The elements of forum shopping are:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent

the same interests in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that
any judgment rendered in the other action will, re­

_______________

73  Rollo, p. 207.
74   Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. No.
109645, January 21, 2015, 746 SCRA 378, 431 [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division], citing Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691,
February 17, 2014, 716 SCRA 175, 178 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

 
 
430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

gardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in

the action under consideration.75

 
This court has explained that disbarment proceedings
are sui generis, and are not akin to civil or criminal cases.76
A disbarment proceeding “is intended to cleanse the ranks
of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order
to protect the public and the courts.”77
Also, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ findings are
recommendatory, and the power to sanction erring
members of the bar lies with this court.78
As discussed by this court in Zaldivar v.
Sandiganbayan:79

The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the

Bar is broader [than] the power to punish for contempt. Contempt
of court may be committed both by lawyers and nonlawyers, both
in and out of court. Frequently, where the contemnor is a lawyer,
the contumacious conduct also constitutes professional
misconduct which calls into play the disciplinary authority of the
Supreme Court. Where the respondent is a lawyer, however, the
Supreme Court’s disciplinary authority over lawyers

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

_______________

75  Id., citing Goodland Company, Inc. v. Asia United Bank, 684 Phil.
391, 409; 668 SCRA 366, 383­384 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First
Division].
76  In re Almacen, No. L­27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 600­
601 [Per J. Castro, En Banc]. See also Gonzalez v. Alcaraz, 534 Phil. 471,
482; 503 SCRA 355, 364 (2006) [Per CJ. Panganiban, First Division]; Que
v. Revilla, Jr., supra note 3 at pp. 22­23; p. 19; Ylaya v. Gacott, A.C. No.
6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452, 467­468 [Per J. Brion, Second
Division]; and Dizon v. De Taza, A.C. No. 7676, June 10, 2014, 726 SCRA
70, 78­79 [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
77  Cristobal v. Renta, A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA
247, 249 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
78   Bernardino v. Santos, A.C. No. 10583, February 18, 2015, 750
SCRA 637, 656 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
79  248 Phil. 542; 166 SCRA 316 (1988) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

 
 
431

VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 431

Kimteng vs. Young

may come into play whether or not the misconduct with

which the respondent is charged also constitutes contempt
of court. The power to punish for contempt of court does not
exhaust the scope of disciplinary authority of the Court
over lawyers. The disciplinary authority of the Court over
members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court’s exclusive
power of admission to the Bar. A lawyers [sic] is not merely
a professional but also an officer of the court and as such,
he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of
dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any
act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or
impede and degrade the administration of justice
constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the
exercise of disciplinary action against him and
contumacious conduct warranting application of the
contempt power.80 (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and
Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are found in contempt of court
for using a disbarred lawyer’s name in their firm name and
are meted a fine of P30,000.00 each.
The Complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol is
DISMISSED. This is without prejudice to any disciplinary
liabilities of respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Dan
Reynald R. Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
The counsels are ordered to make the necessary
amendments in relation to the use of the disbarred lawyer’s
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

name including changes in their signage, notice of

appearances, stationeries, and like material within a
period of five (5) days from receipt.
The Complaint against respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo
is also ordered re­docketed as an administrative matter.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant, to be appended to private respondents’
personal records as attorneys, to the Integrated Bar of the
Phil

_______________

80  Id., at pp. 555­556; pp. 331­332.

 
 
432

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimteng vs. Young

ippines, and to the Office of the Court Administrator for

their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat

meted with P30,000.00 fine each for contempt of court,
complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol dismissed. This is
without prejudice to any disciplinary liabilities of
respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Dan Reynald R.
Magat and Judge Ofelia L. Calo.

Notes.—Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience

to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice
and dignity. (City Government of Baguio vs. Masweng, 717
SCRA 95 [2014])
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all
courts and is essential to the preservation of order in
judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments,
orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the
due administration of justice. (Id.)
 
 
——o0o——

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 765

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686bc0cdf949447b03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22