The SC ordered the name of Roberto B. Romanillos stricken off the roll of attorneys, stating: "He is thus unfit to discharge the duties of his office and unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed on him as an officer of the court. His disbarment is consequently warranted."
The San Jose Homeowners Association Inc. filed the disbarment case against Romanillos, who was its lawyer in a land dispute case against Durano and Corporation, Inc., which the lawyer had also represented. Romanillos was the group's counsel in filing charges before the Human Settlements Regulation Commission, in 1985, against DCI for violation of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protection Act.
The homeowners claimed that a portion of a lot owned by the association was originally designated as a school site in the subdivision plan, which DCI submitted to the Bureau of Lands in 1961.
But DCI later sold it to spouses Ramon and Beatriz Durano without informing the latter that the site was intended as a school site. The SC decision, however, did not mention where the lot was located.
While still the counsel for SJHAI, Romanillos represented Myrna and Antonio Montealegre in requesting the association's nod to construct a school building on the lot they were going to buy from the Durano couple.
When the request was denied, Romanillos applied for clearance, in behalf of the Montealegres, before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. This prompted SJHAI to terminate Romanillos as its counsel then hired another lawyer.
But Romanillos was also the counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez, who substituted for DCI in a civil case, "San Jose Homeowners, Inc. v. Durano and Corp., Inc.," filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Thus, SJHAI filed a disbarment case against Romanillos for representing conflicting interests.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines said Romanillos failed to observe candor and fairness in dealing with his clients. It said the lawyer fully knew that the Montealegre case was adverse to SJHAI, of which he was also its board member and corporate secretary having access to its documents.
When Romanillos acted as counsel for DCI, represented by Durano-Rodriguez, the conflict of interest between DCI and SJHAI became more revealing. But Romanillos still represented DCI, even if the High Court admonished him against such conflicting representation. In 1999, another disbarment case was filed against Romanillos for his alleged deceitful conduct by using the title "Judge" in his office letterhead, correspondences, and even in billboards that were erected in several areas within the San Jose Subdivision.
Romanillos used to be a judge but he resigned before the decision from the SC came out finding him guilty of grave and serious misconduct in a separate case, Zarate vs. Judge Roberto Romanillos.
The SC said Romanillos would have been dismissed from the service had he not resigned for illegal solicitation and receipt of P10,000 cash from a party litigant.
The SC also ruled that the quasi-judicial notice he posted in the billboards referring him as a judge was deceiving. "It was a clear attempt to mislead the public into believing that the order was issued in his capacity as a judge when he was dishonorably stripped of the privilege," it said.
The SC en banc explained that Romanillos should have adhered to the tenets of his profession with extra fervor and vigilance.