FIRST DIVISION

ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA,

Complainant,

Adm. Case No. 6290

Present:
- versus -

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,

PANGANIBAN,
SANTIAGO,
CARPIO, and
AZCUNA, JJ.

ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO,

Respondent.

Promulgated:
July 14, 2004

X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

RESOLUTION
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
In a verified complaint for disbarment filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on 30 May 2000, complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a
former employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the
latter with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office.
On deceit, the complainant alleged that the respondent has been falsely representing
herself to be married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who has a prior and subsisting marriage
with another woman. However, through spurious means, the respondent and Felicisimo R.
Tenorio, Jr., were able to obtain a false marriage contract, [1] which states that they were
married on 10 February 1980 in Manila. Certifications from the Civil Registry of Manila[2] and
the National Statistics Office (NSO)[3] prove that no record of marriage exists between
them. The false date and place of marriage between the two are stated in the birth certificates
of their two children, Donnabel Tenorio[4]and Felicisimo Tenorio III.[5] But in the birth
certificates of their two other children, Oliver Tenorio[6] and John Cedric Tenorio,[7] another
date and place of marriage are indicated, namely, 12 February 1980 in Malaybalay, Bukidnon.
As to grossly immoral conduct, the complainant alleged that the respondent caused the
dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit derogatory to Makati City Councilor Divina

Alora Jacome. The respondent would often openly and sarcastically declare to the
complainant and her co-employees the alleged immorality of Councilor Jacome.
On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged that the
respondent (1) cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a member
of the Philippine Bar; (2) converted her clients money to her own use and benefit, which led
to the filing of an estafa case against her; and (3) threatened the complainant and her family
on 24 January 2000 with the statement Isang bala ka lang to deter them from divulging
respondents illegal activities and transactions.
In her answer, the respondent denied all the allegations against her. As to the charge of
deceit, she declared that she is legally married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr. They were married
on 12 February 1980 as shown by their Certificate of Marriage, Registry No. 2000-9108 of the
Civil Registry of Quezon City.[8] Her husband has no prior and subsisting marriage with
another woman.
As to the charge of grossly immoral conduct, the respondent denied that she caused the
dissemination of a libelous and defamatory affidavit against Councilor Jacome. On the
contrary, it was Councilor Jacome who caused the execution of said document. Additionally,
the complainant and her cohorts are the rumormongers who went around the city of Makati
on the pretext of conducting a survey but did so to besmirch respondents good name and
reputation.
The charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office was likewise denied by
the respondent. She claimed that her Cristal-Tenorio Law Office is registered with the
Department of Trade and Industry as a single proprietorship, as shown by its Certificate of
Registration of Business Name.[9] Hence, she has no partners in her law office. As to the
estafa case, the same had already been dropped pursuant to the Order of 14 June 1996 issued
by Branch 103 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.[10] The respondent likewise denied
that she threatened the complainant with the words Isang bala ka lang on 24 January
2000.
Further, the respondent averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by the
complainant to get even with her. She terminated complainants employment after receiving
numerous complaints that the complainant extorted money from different people with the
promise of processing their passports and marriages to foreigners, but she reneged on her
promise. Likewise, this disbarment complaint is politically motivated: some politicians
offered to re-hire the complainant and her cohorts should they initiate this complaint, which
they did and for which they were re-hired. The respondent also flaunted the fact that she had

received numerous awards and citations for civic works and exemplary service to the
community. She then prayed for the dismissal of the disbarment case for being baseless.
The IBP referred this case to Investigating Commissioner Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico.
During the hearing on 30 August 2000, the parties agreed that the complainant would
submit a Reply to respondents Answer, while the respondent would submit a Rejoinder to the
Reply. The parties also agreed that the Complaint, Answer, and the attached affidavits would
constitute as the respective direct testimonies of the parties and the affiants.[11]
In her Reply, the complainant bolstered her claim that the respondent cooperated in
the illegal practice of law by her husband by submitting (1) the letterhead ofCristal-Tenorio
Law Office[12] where the name of Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior partner; and
(2) a Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card [13]signed by the respondent as
Chairperson where her husband is identified as Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr. She added
that respondents husband even appeared in court hearings.
In her Rejoinder, respondent averred that she neither formed a law partnership with
her husband nor allowed her husband to appear in court on her behalf. If there was an
instance that her husband appeared in court, he did so as a representative of her law
firm. The letterhead submitted by the complainant was a false reproduction to show that her
husband is one of her law partners. But upon cross-examination, when confronted with the
letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her signature, she admitted that Felicisimo
R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo A. Panghulan, who is also not a
lawyer, are named as senior partners because they have investments in her law office.[14]
The respondent further declared that she married Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., on 12
February 1980 in Quezon City, but when she later discovered that their marriage contract was
not registered she applied for late registration on 5 April 2000. She then presented as
evidence a certified copy of the marriage contract issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar
General and authenticated by the NSO. The erroneous entries in the birth certificates of her
children as to the place and date of her marriage were merely an oversight.[15]
Sometime after the parties submitted their respective Offer of Evidence and
Memoranda, the complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint on 13 November 2002
after allegedly realizing that this disbarment complaint arose out of a misunderstanding and
misappreciation of facts. Thus, she is no longer interested in pursuing the case. This motion
was not acted upon by the IBP.

In her Report and Recommendation dated 30 September 2003, IBP Commissioner on

Bar Discipline Milagros V. San Juan found that the complainant failed to substantiate the
charges of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. However, she found the respondent guilty of
the charge of cooperating in the illegal practice of law by Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in
violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility based on the
following evidence: (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office, which lists Felicisimo R.
Tenorio, Jr., as a senior partner; (2) the Sagip Communication Radio Group identification
card of Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., signed by respondent as Chairperson; (3) and the
Order dated 18 June 1997 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos.
20729 20734, wherein Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., entered his appearance as counsel and
even moved for the provisional dismissal of the cases for failure of the private complainants
to appear and for lack of interest to prosecute the said cases. Thus, Commissioner San Juan
recommended that the respondent be reprimanded.
In its Resolution No. XVI-2003-228 dated 25 October 2003, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of
Commissioner San Juan. The modification consisted in increasing the penalty from
reprimand to suspension from the practice of law for six months with a warning that a similar
offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the findings and conclusion of Commissioner San Juan as approved and
adopted with modification by the Board of Governors of the IBP.
At the outset, we find that the IBP was correct in not acting on the Motion to Withdraw
Complaint filed by complainant Cambaliza. In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[16] we declared:
The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does
not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the
basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has
been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A
proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken
and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of
preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in
them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the
court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except
as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on
record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of
complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.

Hence, notwithstanding the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, this disbarment case should
proceed accordingly.
The IBP correctly found that the charges of deceit and grossly immoral conduct were
not substantiated. In disbarment proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving his
case by convincing evidence.[17] With respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the
charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the respondent is not yet convicted
thereof. In Gerona vs. Datingaling,[18] we held that when the criminal prosecution based on
the same act charged is still pending in court, any administrative disciplinary proceedings for
the same act must await the outcome of the criminal case to avoid contradictory findings.
We, however, affirm the IBPs finding that the respondent is guilty of assisting in the
unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer who allows a non-member 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:
law.

Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of

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 ones 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.[19] Such acts
constitute unauthorized practice of law.
In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds himself out as
one. His wife, the respondent herein, abetted and aided him in the unauthorized practice of
the legal profession.
At the hearing, the respondent admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law
Office listed Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo A. Panghulan, and Maricris D. Battung as
senior partners. She admitted that the first two are not lawyers but paralegals. They are
listed in the letterhead of her law office as senior partners because they have investments in
her law office.[20] That is a blatant misrepresentation.
The Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card is another proof that the
respondent assisted Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in misrepresenting to the public that he is a

lawyer. Notably, the identification card stating that he is Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., bears
the signature of the respondent as Chairperson of the Group.
The lawyers 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. [21]
WHEREFORE, for culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio is
herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective
immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be attached to respondent Cristal-Tenorios record as
attorney in this Court and furnished to the IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts.
SO ORDERED.

PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and

EDGARDO C. GARCIA,
Complainants,

-versus-

A.C. No. 7056

Present:
PUNO, C J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION, and
PERALTA, JJ.

Promulgated:
ATTY. ANASTACIO E.
REVILLA, JR.,
Respondent.
February 11, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.
Before us is a motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated September 13, 2006,
finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for committing a willful and intentional
falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a
judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.
To recall, the antecedents of the case are as follows:
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite
(PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers
Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez

Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra,
who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that
respondents clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject
land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining
complainants rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients lost cause, respondent was
found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention
to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for
temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the
decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law
holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm.
The dispositive portion of the decision thus reads:
WHEREFORE, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross
misconduct and is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent as attorney
and served on the IBP, as well as on the court administrator who shall circulate it to
all courts for their information and guidance.[1]

Respondent duly filed a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period,
appealing to the Court to take a second look at his case and praying that the penalty of
suspension of two years be reduced to mere reprimand or admonition for the sake of his family
and the poor clients he was defending.[2]
Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. The courses of
action he took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision dated
November 19, 1999, but were based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation
lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB
case. He believes that the courses of action he took were valid and proper legal theory designed
to protect the rights and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al.[3] He stresses that he was not
the original lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer was
terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel did
not explain/argue their position very well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even castigated
them. As the new counsel, respondent candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in
the course of his interview. They maintained that they had been in open, adverse, continuous
and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more than 50 years. Thus,
the filing of the action to quiet title was resorted to in order to determine the rights of his clients
respecting the subject property. He avers that he merely exhausted all possible remedies and

defenses to which his clients were entitled under the law, considering that his clients were
subjected to harassment and threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the
complainant.[4] He posits that he was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a
good father would be protective of his own family,[5] and that his services to Leopoldo de
Guzman, et. al were almost pro bono.[6]
Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for unauthorized practice of law, he
humbly submits that there was actually no sufficient evidence to prove the same or did he fail to
dispute this, contrary to the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He was
counsel of Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. only and not of the cooperative Kalayaan Development
Cooperative (KDC). He was just holding his office in this cooperative, together with Attys.
Dominador Ferrer, Efren Ambrocio, the late Alfredo Caloico and Marciano Villavert. He signed
the retainer agreement with Atty. Dominador to formalize their lawyer-client relationship, and
the complainants were fully aware of such arrangement.[7]
Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of action
he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration,
pardon and forgiveness. He reiterates that he does not deserve the penalty of two years
suspension, considering that the complaint fails to show him wanting in character, honesty,
and probity; in fact, he has been a member of the bar for more than 20 years, served as former
president of the IBP Marinduque Chapter, a legal aide lawyer of IBP Quezon City handling
detention prisoners and pro bono cases, and is also a member of the Couples for Christ, and has
had strict training in the law school he graduated from and the law offices he worked
with.[8] He is the sole breadwinner in the family with a wife who is jobless, four (4) children
who are in school, a mother who is bedridden and a sick sister to support. The familys only
source of income is respondents private practice of law, a work he has been engaged in for
more than twenty-five (25) years up to the present.[9]
On August 15, 2008, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from
respondent, requesting that he be issued a clearance for the renewal of his notarial commission.
Respondent stated therein that he was aware of the pendency of the administrative
cases[10] against him, but pointed out that said cases had not yet been resolved with
finality. Respondent sought consideration and compassion for the issuance of the clearance -considering present economic/financial difficulties -- and reiterating the fact that he was the sole
breadwinner in the family.
It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his full attention,
diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts
it for a fee or for free.[11] A lawyers devotion to his clients cause not only requires but also
entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or

to present every defense provided by law to enable the latters cause to succeed. [12] In this case,
respondent may not be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the
respondents acts complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and misguided
desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated. We are not
unmindful of his dedication and conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels
from the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should not forget his
first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. We stress what we have stated in our
decision that, in support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every
remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be
performed at the expense of truth and justice.[13] This is the criterion that must be borne in mind
in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case.[14] Under the Code of Professional Responsibility,
a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is
enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing
court processes.[15]
Certainly, violations of these canons cannot be countenanced, as respondent must have
realized with the sanction he received from this Court. However, the Court also knows how to
show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in the
presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondents length of service, acknowledgment of
his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, and respondents advanced age, among other things, which have varying
significance in the Courts determination of the imposable penalty. Thus, after a careful
consideration of herein respondents motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment
of his misfeasance, we are persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards him. [16] We find
the suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this case

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the letter-request dated August 15, 2008

is NOTED. Respondents Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Decision dated September 13, 2006 is hereby MODIFIED in that respondent
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt
of this Resolution. Respondent is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of
said Resolution within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent as attorney and served
on the IBP, as well as on the Court Administrator, who shall circulate it to all courts for their
information and guidance.