View full case

DAVID YU KIMTENG v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG

FACTS:

The case involves a petition to cite the law firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo in contempt of court. Anastacio Revilla, Jr., a disbarred lawyer, was a former member of the law firm. The Supreme Court ordered the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation and the case was assigned to Branch 211 of the Regional Trial Court in Mandaluyong City, presided by Judge Calo. Lawyers Walter T. Young, Jovito Gambol, and Dan Reynald Magat appeared as counsels for the liquidator in the liquidation proceedings under the firm name Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. An opposition was filed against the appearance of the firm, asserting that Revilla was disbarred in 2009. The law firm argued that they retained Revilla's name out of charity. Judge Calo overruled the opposition and allowed Attorney Young to appear, provided that he would do so under the Young Law Firm and not under Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. Respondents argued that the use of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name was for sentimental reasons and did not deceive the public. They also claimed that the petitioner was engaged in forum shopping.

Private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat continued to use the name of respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. in their firm name even after his disbarment. The court referred to Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which defines indirect contempt, and Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits the use of false, misleading, or assumed names in law firm names. The court noted that retaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may mislead the public, in contrast to the permissible use of a deceased partner's name with an indication that the partner is deceased.

The case involves two law firms, Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan Law Firm and Ozaeta, Romulo, Esguerra & Azcuna Law Firm, petitioning for the continued use of the names of their deceased founders in their respective law firms. The law firms sought the permission of the Court to retain the names of Alexander Sycip, former Justice Ozaeta, and Herminio Ozaeta in their firm names. The purpose of retaining the names is to maintain the clients who have customarily sought the legal services of the deceased lawyers and to benefit from the goodwill attached to their names. The Court acknowledged that this practice is not illegal per se, as it was also followed by the law firm of James Ross before the war, despite the death of Judge Ross, the founder.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the use of a deceased partner's name in a law firm's name is permitted.

  2. Whether the use of a person's name who is not authorized to practice law constitutes contempt of court.

  3. Whether respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat are liable for contempt of court for failing to remove respondent Revilla's name from the firm name.

  4. Whether respondent Atty. Gambol should be held liable for contempt of court for his actions regarding the removal of respondent Revilla's name.

  5. Whether respondent Judge Calo should be cited in contempt for allowing respondent Atty. Young's appearance under the Young Law Firm.

  6. Whether the filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 constitute forum shopping.

  7. Whether the power to sanction erring members of the bar lies with the Supreme Court.

RULING:

  1. The use of a deceased partner's name in a law firm's name is permitted, provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.

  2. The use of a person's name who is not authorized to practice law constitutes contempt of court.

  3. Respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat are held liable for contempt of court for failing to remove respondent Revilla's name from the firm name. They are each imposed a fine of P30,000.00.

  4. Respondent Atty. Gambol is not held liable for contempt of court as he made efforts to remove respondent Revilla's name from the pleadings he filed.

  5. The Petition to cite respondent Judge Calo in contempt is not the proper remedy. The Complaint against respondent Judge Calo shall be re-docketed as an administrative matter.

  6. The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the IBP and a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 does not constitute forum shopping. Forum shopping requires the identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and the identity of the two preceding particulars. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and are not similar to civil or criminal cases. The purpose of disbarment proceedings is to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession and protect the public and the courts. The IBP's findings are recommendatory, and the power to sanction erring members of the bar lies with the Supreme Court.

  7. 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 fined P30,000.00 each. The complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol is dismissed without prejudice to any disciplinary liabilities of the other respondents. The counsels are ordered to make necessary amendments to their firm name within five (5) days. The complaint against Judge Ofelia L. Calo is also ordered re-docketed as an administrative matter.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The use of a deceased partner's name in a law firm's name is not illegal per se, as long as it is indicated that the partner is deceased. This practice is allowed to retain clients and benefit from the goodwill attached to the name of the deceased partner.

  • The use of a person's name who is not authorized to practice law constitutes contempt of court. Lawyers have a duty to prevent, or at least not to assist, in the unauthorized practice of law. 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.

  • Rule 71, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the penalties for indirect contempt.

  • The writ of execution may issue for the enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine, unless the court otherwise provides.

  • Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion of judicial remedies are prerequisites before taking other measures against judges.

  • Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and distinct from civil or criminal cases.

  • Disbarment proceedings aim to cleanse the legal profession and protect the public and the courts.

  • The findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in disbarment proceedings are recommendatory.

  • The power to sanction erring members of the bar lies with the Supreme Court.

  • The disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over lawyers is broader than the power to punish for contempt.

  • Lawyers are not only professionals but also officers of the court, and their actions may warrant both professional misconduct and contempt of court.