Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Plus Builders Inc. vs. Revilla, Jr. 578 SCRA 431facts

    Uploaded by

    Jeff Madrid
    1) Plus Builders Inc. filed a case against the clients of Atty. Revilla Jr. before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) and won. However, Revilla filed several motions attempting to delay the execution of the decision. 2) Revilla is accused of intentional falsehood, misusing court processes to delay execution of the decision, and allowing non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in his firm. 3) While lawyers have a duty to defend their clients fully, they must do so truthfully and without unduly delaying cases. The court suspended Revilla from practice for 6 months for overzealously defending his poor clients in a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Plus Builders Inc. vs. Revilla, Jr. 578 SCRA 431facts

    Uploaded by

    Jeff Madrid
    24 views1 page
    1) Plus Builders Inc. filed a case against the clients of Atty. Revilla Jr. before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) and won. However, Revilla filed several motions attempting to delay the execution of the decision. 2) Revilla is accused of intentional falsehood, misusing court processes to delay execution of the decision, and allowing non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in his firm. 3) While lawyers have a duty to defend their clients fully, they must do so truthfully and without unduly delaying cases. The court suspended Revilla from practice for 6 months for overzealously defending his poor clients in a

    Original Description:

    hg

    Original Title

    64

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Plus Builders Inc. filed a case against the clients of Atty. Revilla Jr. before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) and won. However, Revilla filed several motions attempting to delay the execution of the decision. 2) Revilla is accused of intentional falsehood, misusing court processes to delay execution of the decision, and allowing non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in his firm. 3) While lawyers have a duty to defend their clients fully, they must do so truthfully and without unduly delaying cases. The court suspended Revilla from practice for 6 months for overzealously defending his poor clients in a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    Plus Builders Inc. vs. Revilla, Jr. 578 SCRA 431facts

    Uploaded by

    Jeff Madrid
    1) Plus Builders Inc. filed a case against the clients of Atty. Revilla Jr. before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) and won. However, Revilla filed several motions attempting to delay the execution of the decision. 2) Revilla is accused of intentional falsehood, misusing court processes to delay execution of the decision, and allowing non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in his firm. 3) While lawyers have a duty to defend their clients fully, they must do so truthfully and without unduly delaying cases. The court suspended Revilla from practice for 6 months for overzealously defending his poor clients in a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Plus Builders Inc. vs. Revilla, Jr.

    578 SCRA 431Facts:


    The Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) rendered a decision in favor of Plus Builders, Inc. and
    against the clients of Atty. Revilla, Jr. 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. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law
    holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm. Respondent maintains that he did not
    commit the acts complained of and that the courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay
    the execution of the DARAB Decision.

    Issue:
    WON respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

    Held:
    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 afee or for free.

    A lawyer’s devotion to his client’s cause not


    only requires but also entitles him to deployevery honorable means to secure for the client what is justly
    due him or to present every defense
    provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to succeed.

    In this case, respondent may not be wanting inthis r


    egard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondent’s acts complained of were committed
    out of his over-zealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were
    poorand uneducated. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable,
    butrespondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court.In
    support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy ordefense within
    the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expenseof truth and
    justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in thespeedy and
    efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impedingexecution of
    a judgment or by misusing court processes.However, the Court also knows how to show compassion and
    will not hesitate to refrain fromimposing the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors,
    suc
    h as the respondent’s
    length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances,
    humanitarian and equitable considerations, and respondent’s advanced age, among other things, which
    have varying significance in
    the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty. Therefore, a suspension
    of six (6) months from the practice of law is sufficient in this case.

    You might also like