IN THE MATTER OF THE LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY.
- There is substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of
LEONARD S. DE VERA DATED MAY 18, 2005 TO FORTHWITH
deny/disapprove the ibp resolution unjustly, illegally, arbitrarily, and
abruptly removing him from the board of governors of the ibp for
absolute lack of basis and for flagrant denial of due process.
(three consolidated cases)
1st - pertains to the disbarment case questioning Atty. De Veras
Moral Fitness to remain as a member of the Philippine Bar,
2nd refers to Atty. De Veras request to schedule his oath taking as
IBP National President
3rd concerns the validity of his removal as Governor and EVP of the
IBP Board.
Facts:
A.C. No. 6697
(Rule 39, Section 48)
Section 27 of Rule 138
1st issue: Respondents alleged misrepresentation in concealing the
suspension order rendered him by the State Bar of California;
appropriating for his own benefits due his client, forced to resign or
surrender his license to evade the 3yr. suspension
2nd issue: Respondents alleged violation of the so called rotation
rule; when he transferred to IBP Agusan del Sur Chapter, failed to
meet the requirements; transfer was intended only for the purpose of
becoming the next IBP National President;
3rd issue: WoN Res Judicata applies in this case, Due to admin case
no. 6052; The complainant's contention that the principle of res
judicata would not apply in the case at bar as the first administrative
case was one for disqualification while the instant administrative
complaint is one for suspension and/or disbarment.
RULING:
1st - He explained that the California SC rendered no final judgment
finding him guilty of charge. He surrendered his license to protest the
discrimination he suffered at the hands of the investigator and he
found it impractical to pursue the case to the end.
The court finds these explanations satisfactory in the
absence of contrary proof.
- The recommendation of the hearing officer of the State Bar of
California, standing alone, is not proof of malpractice.
The judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer in a
foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result in his
suspension or disbarment in the Philippines as the acts giving
rise to his suspension are not grounds for disbarment and
suspension.
Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may
transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines
only if the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the
grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
In herein case, considering that there is technically no foreign
judgment to speak of, the recommendation by the hearing officer of
the State Bar of California does not constitute prima facie evidence
of unethical behavior by Atty. de Vera. Complainant must prove by
substantial evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by
the hearing officer was based. If he is successful in this, he must
then prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine
law.
Atty. de Vera independent of the recommendation of
suspension by the hearing officer of the State Bar of
California.
(see Sec. 28, Rule 138)
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by
a competent court or other disciplinary 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.
The statutory enunciation of the grounds for disbarment on
suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of
courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent power of the
court over its officers cannot be restricted.
2nd Petitioners aver that in changing his IBP membership
respondent DV violated the domicile rule. Petitioners contend that
respondent DV is disqualified for the post because he is not really
from Eastern Mindanao. His place of residence is Paraaque.
The contention has no merit. Under last paragraph of
Section 19, Art. II A lawyer can register with the particular IBP
Chapter of his preference or choice. He has the disceretion to
choose the particular chapter where he wishes to gain membership.
The only proscription in registering ones preference is that A lawyer
cannot be a member of more that one chapter at the same time.
In fact under this section, transfer of IBP membership is
allowed, The onlly condition required under the foregoing rule is that
the transfer must not be made not less than 3 months prior to
the election of officers in the chapter to which the lawyer
wishes to transfer.
In the case, respondent DV requested the transfer 17
months had elapsed. This makes resp. DV TRANSFER VALID AS
IT WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE MONTHS AHEAD OF THE
CHAPTER ELECTIONS.
- Transferring IBP membership to a chapter where the
lawyer is not a resident of is not a ground for his suspension or
disbarment.
3rd: The complainants contention should be given least credence.
The two admin. Cases involves different subject matters
and causes of action. In the Admin. Case No. 6052, the subject
matter was the qualification of Atty. DV to run as candidate for
the position of IBP Gov. for Eastern Mindanao.
In the Present admin. Complaint the SM is his privelege to practice
law.
In the first Admin. Case complainants cause of Action was Atty.
DVs alleged violation or circumvention of the IBP by-laws.
In the present case the primary cause of action is Atty. DVs alleged
violation of lawyers oath and the CPR.
The 2 cases do not seek the same relief.
FIRST CASE the complainants sought to prevent Atty. DV from
assuming his post as IBP Gov. of Eastern Mindanao.
In the present case what is principally being sought is Atty. DVs
suspension or disbarment.
- We held therein that Atty. de Vera cannot be disqualified; no firm
ground to stand on.
- the complainants therein were not the proper parties to bring the
suit as the IBP By-laws prescribes that only nominees can file
with the IBP President a written protest against the candidate.
- Precisely, the IBP By-laws do not allow for pre-election
disqualification proceedings; hence, Atty. de Vera cannot be
disqualified on the basis of the administrative findings of a
hearing officer of the State Bar of California suspending him
from the practice of law for three years.
- There is nothing in the By-Laws which explicitly provides
that one must be morally fit before he can run for IBP
governorship. determination of moral fitness of a candidate lies
in the individual judgment of the members of the House of
Delegates; so long as the latter possesses the basic
requirements under the law.
- What this simply means is that absent a final judgment by the
Supreme Court in a proper case declaring otherwise, every
lawyer aspiring to hold the position of IBP Regional
Director is presumed morally fit.
- Any person who begs to disagree will not be able to find a
receptive audience in the IBP through a petition for
disqualification but must first file the necessary disbarment
or suspension proceeding against the lawyer concerned.
Bar Matter No. 1227
refers to Atty. DVs letter request to this court to schedule his oath
taking as IBP President.
The controversy arose from the regular meeting of the IBP
Board of governors regarding the petition to question the legality
and/or constitutionality RA 9227 authorizing the increase in the
salaries of judges and justices and to increase filing fees.
One of the two IBP Governors who opposed the said
resolution approving the withdrawal of the petition was Governor and
EVP De Vera.
A plenary session was held at the 10th National IBP
Convention. It was at this forum where Atty. DV allegedly made
some untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies in connection
with the IBP Boards Resolution to withdraw the Petition question the
legality or constitutionality of the RA 9227.
A TRO was issued enjoining Atty. DV from assuming office
as IBP President. And a prayer for removal of Atty. DV as a member
of the IBP Board of Governors.
Upon Regular meeting of the Board Atty. DV was removed as a
member of th IBP Board of Governors and IBP
1. For making untruthful statements, inuendos and blatant lies in
the public about the SC and the IBP Board of Governors, during
the Plenary Session of the IBP, making it appear that the
decision of the IBP BoG appear that the decision of the IBP to
withdraw the Petition was due to the influence and pressure of
the SC;
2. For making said untruthful statements, brought the IBP and
Board of Governors and the IBP as a whole in public, contempt
and disrepute.
3. For violation Canon 11 by making untruthful statements ,
innuendos, blatant lies during the Plenary Session.
4. For instigating and provoking the IBP BoG in order to coerce the
latter to pursue the said petition
5. For falsely accusing the IBP Natl. Pres. During the 10th plenary
session of withholding him a copy of SC resolution granting the
withdrawal of the said petition.
Thereby creating a wrong impression that the IBP National
pres. Deliberately prevented him form making the appropriate
remedies with respect thereto.
Thus, compromising the reputation of the IBP National President
and the IBP as a whole.
The vacancy of in the position of the IBP EVP brought
about by Atty. DVs Removal, In his stead, IBP Gov. Santiago was
formally Elected and declared as IBP EVP. Atty. DV contended that
said election was illegal. As it was in contrary to the provisions of the
IBP By-laws concerning national officers.
Issue:
i. Whether the IBP Board of Governors complied with administrative
due process in removing Atty. de Vera.
ii. Whether the IBP removed Atty. De Vera for just and valid cause.
II. Whether Governor Salazar was validly elected as EVP of the IBP
on 25 June 2005, and can consequently assume the Presidency of
the IBP for the term 2005-2007.
The IBP Board observed due process in its removal of
Atty. de Vera as IBP Governor
(Sec. 44)
Sec. 44. Removal of members.
Under the aforementioned section, a member of the IBP
Board may be removed for cause by resolution adopted by
two-thirds (2/3) of the remaining members of the Board,
subject to the approval of this Court.
The IBP Board removed Atty. de Vera as IBP Governor for just
and valid cause
The IBP Board argues that it is vested with sufficient power
and authority to protect itself from an intractable member whose
removal was caused not by his disagreement with the IBP Board but
due to various acts committed by him which the IBP Board
considered as inimical to the IBP Board in particular and the IBP in
general.
In view of the importance of retaining group cohesiveness
and unity, the expulsion of a member of the board who insists on
bringing to the public his disagreement with a policy/resolution
approved by the majority after due discussion, cannot be faulted.
When a member of a governing body cannot accept the
voice of the majority, he should resign therefrom so that he could
criticize in public the majority opinion/decision to his heart's content;
otherwise, he subjects himself to disciplinary action by the body.
The removal of Atty. de Vera as member of the Board of
Governors ipso facto meant his removal as EVP as well
To be EVP of the IBP, one must necessarily be a member of
IBP Board of Governors. Atty. de Vera's removal from the Board of
Governors, automatically disqualified him from acting as IBP EVP. To
insist otherwise would be contrary to Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws.
The Court will not interfere with the Resolution of the IBP Board
to remove Atty. de Vera since it was rendered without grave
abuse of discretion
The power of supervision of the Supreme Court over the
IBP should not preclude the IBP from exercising its reasonable
discretion especially in the administration of its internal affairs
governed by the provisions of its By-Laws.
The election of Atty. Salazar by the IBP Board as IBP EVP in
replacement of Atty. De Vera was conducted in accordance with
the authority granted to the Board by the IBP By-Laws
 the same is a purely internal matter, done without grave
abuse of discretion, and implemented without violating the Rules and
By-Laws of the IBP.
BM 491
it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP which is actually rotated
among the nine Regional Governors.
The rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a
result of the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the
Presidency.
Thus, the rotation rule pertains in particular to the
position of IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule pertains to
the Presidency. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is but a
consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in Section
47 of the IBP By-Laws. The rotation rule had been completed
despite the non-assumption by Atty. de Vera to the IBP Presidency.
Moreover, the application of the rotation rule is not a license
to disregard the spirit and purpose of the automatic succession rule,
but should be applied in harmony with the latter.
In any case, Section 47 of the IBP Rules uses the phrase "as much
as practicable" to clearly indicate that the rotation rule is not a
rigid and inflexible rule as to bar exceptions in compelling and
exceptional circumstances.
It is in view of the foregoing that the argument advanced by Atty. De
Vera that the IBP national presidency should be assumed by a
nominee from Eastern Mindanao region from where he comes, can
not hold water.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we rule as follows:
1) SUSPEND Atty. Leonard de Vera in A.C. No. 6697 from the
practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS,
2) DISMISS the letter-complaint of Atty. Leonard de Vera,
praying for the disapproval of the Resolution, of the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines removing him
from his posts as Governor and Executive Vice President of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the said Resolution having been
rendered without grave abuse of discretion;
3) AFFIRM the election by the Board of Governors of Atty. Jose
Vicente B. Salazar as ExecutiveVice President of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for the remainder of the term 2003-2005, such
having been conducted in accordance with its By-Laws and absent
any showing of grave abuse of discretion; and
4) DIRECT Atty. Jose Vicente B. Salazar to immediately take his
oath of office and assume the Presidency of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.
IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO
PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B.
MUNESES,
(GRANTED)
Epifanio B. Muness lost his privilege to practice law when he
became a citizen of the USA, he reacquired his Philippine
citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 by taking his oath of
allegiance as citizen before the Phil. Consulate Gen. in
Washington DC; that he intends to retire in the Phil. and if
granted to resume the practice of law.
Under RA no. 9225, natural-born citizens who have
lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of naturalization as
citizens f a foreign country are deemed to have re-
acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking oath
of allegiance to the republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who
becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires
his Philippines citizenship under RA 9225, remains to be a
member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to
resume the practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225
provides that a person who intends to practice his
profession in the Philippines must apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice.
Adherence to the rigid standards of
- mental fitness,
- maintenance of the highest degree of morality,
- faithful observance of the legal profession,
compliance with the mandatory MCLE requirement
and
- payment of membership fees to the IBP
are the conditions required for the membership in good
standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice
law.
Thus, pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court
for the practice of law, the OBC required the petitioner to
submit the original certified true copies of the following doc
in relation to his petition:
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of
Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of
annual membership dues;
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted.
The OBC require the petitioner to update his
compliance with the MCLE.
After all the requirements were satisfactorily complied with
and the finding that the petitioner has met all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for
membership of the bar, the OBC recommended that the
petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law.