EN BANC
|
ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR
M. ALCANTARA, VICENTE P. MERCADO, SEVERINO P. MERCADO AND SPOUSES JESUS AND
ROSARIO MERCADO, Complainants, - versus - |
A.C. No. 5859 (Formerly
CBD Case No. 421) Present: CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ, SERENO,
JJ. |
|
ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA, Respondent. |
Promulgated: November
23, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
For our review is the Resolution[1] of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) finding respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera liable for
professional malpractice and gross misconduct and recommending his
disbarment.
The facts, as
appreciated by the investigating commissioner,[2] are undisputed.
The respondent
is a member of the Bar and was the former counsel of Rosario P. Mercado in a
civil case filed in 1984 with the
Pursuant to a
favorable decision, a writ of execution pending appeal was issued in favor of
Rosario P. Mercado. Herein respondent, as her legal counsel, garnished the bank
deposits of the defendant, but did not turn over the proceeds to
On
Following the
release of the aforesaid IBP Resolution, the respondent filed a series of
lawsuits against the Mercado family except George Mercado. The respondent also
instituted cases against the family corporation, the corporation’s accountant
and the judge who ruled against the reopening of the case where respondent
tried to collect the balance of his alleged fee from
In his
defense the respondent basically offers a denial of the charges against
him.
He denies he has committed barratry by instigating or stirring up George
Mercado to file lawsuits against the complainants. He insists that the lawsuits
that he and George filed against the complainants were not harassment suits but
were in fact filed in good faith and were based on strong facts.[8]
Also, the respondent
denies that he has engaged in forum shopping. He argues that he was merely
exhausting the remedies allowed by law and that he was merely constrained to
seek relief elsewhere by reason of the denial of the trial court to reopen the civil
case so he could justify his attorney’s fees.
Further, he
denies that he had exploited the problems of his client’s family. He argues that the case that he and George
Mercado filed against the complainants arose from their perception of unlawful
transgressions committed by the latter for which they must be held accountable
for the public interest.
Finally, the respondent denies using any intemperate, vulgar, or
unprofessional language. On the
contrary, he asserts that it was the complainants who resorted to intemperate
and vulgar language in accusing him of “extorting from
After careful
consideration of the records of this case and the parties’ submissions, we find
ourselves in agreement with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors.
It is worth
stressing that the practice of law
is not a right
but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess,
and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment
of such privilege.[10] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only be
deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court
after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege
or right, an attorney’s right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding
to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a
license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must
be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to
remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney,
and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of
justice, rather than to punish the attorney.[11] In
Maligsa v. Cabanting,[12] we explained that the bar should maintain a high standard of
legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession
by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and
to his clients. To this end a member of
the legal profession should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in
any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession. An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for
any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which
include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.
In the
present case, the respondent committed professional malpractice and gross
misconduct particularly in his acts against his former clients after the
issuance of the IBP Resolution suspending him from the practice of law for one
year. In summary, the respondent filed against his former client, her family
members, the family corporation of his former client, the Chairman and members
of the Board of Governors of the IBP who issued the said Resolution, the
Regional Trial Court Judge in the case where his former client received a favorable
judgment, and the present counsel of his former client, a total of twelve (12) different cases in
various fora which included the Securities and Exchange Commission; the
Provincial Prosecutors Office of Tagum, Davao; the Davao City Prosecutors Office;
the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline; the Department of Agrarian Reform; and
the Supreme Court.[13]
In addition
to the twelve (12) cases filed, the respondent also re-filed cases which had
previously been dismissed. The respondent filed six criminal cases against
members of the Mercado family separately docketed as I.S. Nos. 97-135; 97-136;
97-137; 97-138; 97-139; and 97-140. With
the exception of I.S. No. 97-139, all the aforementioned cases are re-filing of
previously dismissed cases.[14]
Now, there is
nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in different
fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules,
and without any ill-motive or purpose other than to achieve justice and
fairness. In the present case, however, we
find that the barrage of cases filed by the respondent against his former
client and others close to her was meant to overwhelm said client and to show
her that the respondent does not fold easily after he was meted a penalty of
one year suspension from the practice of law.
The nature of
the cases filed by the respondent, the fact of re-filing them after being
dismissed, the timing of the filing of cases, the fact that the respondent was
in conspiracy with a renegade member of the complainants’ family, the
defendants named in the cases and the foul language used in the pleadings and
motions[15] all indicate that the respondent was
acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His act of filing a barrage of cases appears
to be an act of revenge and hate driven by anger and frustration against his
former client who filed the disciplinary complaint against him for infidelity
in the custody of a client’s funds.
In the case
of Prieto v. Corpuz,[16] the Court pronounced that it is professionally
irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous lawsuits. Thus, we stated in Prieto,
Atty.
Marcos V. Prieto must be sanctioned for filing this unfounded complaint.
Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to
litigate, however, this right must be exercised in good faith.[17]
As
officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper
administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing
frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary.
A lawyer
is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court
itself, he is an instrument to advance its ends – the speedy, efficient,
impartial, correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt
satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain
these objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices
that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with the
primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.[18] Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility promulgated on 21 June 1988 is very
explicit that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Further,
the respondent not only filed frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that violated
his duties as an officer of the court in aiding in the proper administration of
justice, but he did so against a former client to whom he owes loyalty and
fidelity. Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility[19] provides:
CANON 21 - A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Rule 21.02 – A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage
of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall
he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the
client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
The cases
filed by the respondent against his former client involved matters and
information acquired by the respondent during the time when he was still
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law
effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant to be
spread on the records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|||
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
||
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
||
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
||
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
||
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
||
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
||
|
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
MARIA |
||
* On
official leave.
[1] Rollo, p. 254. In its Resolution No. XV-2002-391, the IBP Board of Governors resolved as follows:
…
to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part
of this Resolution/Decision as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
considering that the Commission finds convincing, indeed compelling evidence to
sustain the indictment against Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera for professional
malpractice and gross misconduct consisting of barratry, abuse of judicial
proceedings and processes, exploiting a family’s personal problem for vengeful
and illegal purposes and employing unprofessional, intemperate and abusive
language, Respondent is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. The counter-petition against Atty. Carmen
Leonor M. Alcantara is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
[2] Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan,
Report dated
[3] Rollo, p. 264.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo,
pp. 265-266.
[7] SEC.
27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.
– A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted
as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of
such action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment,
resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima
facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension.
[8] Rollo, p. 267.
[9]
[10] Mecaral v. Velasquez, A.C. No. 8392
(Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175),
[11] Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., A.C. No.
3248,
[12] A.C. No. 4539,
[13] Rollo, pp.
270-273.
[14]
[15]
[16] A.C. No. 6517,
[17] Duduaco v. Laquindanum, A.M. No.
MTJ-05-1601 (OCA-I.P.I No. 02-1213-MTJ),
[18] Citing
Agpalo, Comments on the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct, p. 117 (2004 Ed.).
[19] Promulgated by the Supreme Court on