10/20/2016 A.C.No.

5859

ENBANC

ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. A.C.No.5859
ALCANTARA, VICENTE P. (FormerlyCBDCaseNo.421)
MERCADO, SEVERINO P.
MERCADO AND SPOUSES JESUS Present:
ANDROSARIOMERCADO,
Complainants, CORONA,C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
versus PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,and
SERENO,JJ.

ATTY.EDUARDOC.DEVERA, Promulgated:
Respondent.
November23,2010
xx

RESOLUTION
PERCURIAM:
[1]

ForourreviewistheResolution oftheBoardofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthe
Philippines (IBP) finding respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera liable for professional
malpracticeandgrossmisconductandrecommendinghisdisbarment.
[2]

Thefacts,asappreciatedbytheinvestigatingcommissioner, areundisputed.

TherespondentisamemberoftheBarandwastheformercounselofRosarioP.Mercado
inacivilcasefiledin1984withtheRegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCityandanadministrative
[3]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 1/8
10/20/2016 A.C.No.5859

casefiledbeforetheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission,DavaoCityExtensionOffice.

Pursuanttoafavorabledecision,awritofexecutionpendingappealwasissuedinfavor
ofRosarioP.Mercado.Hereinrespondent,asherlegalcounsel,garnishedthebankdepositsof
the defendant, but did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. Rosario demanded that the
respondentturnovertheproceedsofthegarnishment,butthelatterrefusedclaimingthathehad
[4] refusal
paidpartofthemoneytothejudgewhilethebalancewashis,asattorneysfees. Such

promptedRosariotofileanadministrativecasefordisbarmentagainsttherespondent.

OnMarch23,1993,theIBPBoardofGovernorspromulgatedaResolutionholdingthe
[5]
respondentguiltyofinfidelityinthecustodyandhandlingofclientsfundsandrecommendingto

theCourthisoneyearsuspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.

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 corporations accountant and the judge who ruled
againstthereopeningofthecasewhererespondenttriedtocollectthebalanceofhisallegedfee
fromRosario.Lateron,therespondentalsofiledcasesagainstthechairmanandmembersofthe
IBPBoardofGovernorswhovotedtorecommendhissuspensionfromthepracticeoflawfor
one year. Complainants allege that the respondent committed barratry, forum shopping,
exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate language when he filed several
frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits[6]
against the complainants and their family members, their

lawyers,andthefamilycorporation. Theymaintainthattheprimarypurposeofthecasesisto
harassandtoexactrevengefortheoneyearsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawmetedoutby
[7]
theIBPagainsttherespondent.Thus,theypraythattherespondentbedisbarredformalpractice

andgrossmisconductunderSection27, Rule138oftheRulesofCourt.

Inhisdefensetherespondentbasicallyoffersadenialofthechargesagainsthim.

He denies he has committed barratry by instigating or stirring up George Mercado to file

lawsuitsagainstthecomplainants.HeinsiststhatthelawsuitsthatheandGeorgefiledagainstthe
[8]were not harassment suits but were in fact filed in good faith and were based on
complainants

strongfacts.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 2/8
10/20/2016 A.C.No.5859

Also,therespondentdeniesthathehasengagedinforumshopping.Hearguesthathewas
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
justifyhisattorneysfees.

Further,hedeniesthathehadexploitedtheproblemsofhisclientsfamily.Hearguesthat
thecasethatheandGeorgeMercadofiledagainstthecomplainantsarosefromtheirperception
ofunlawfultransgressionscommittedbythelatterforwhichtheymustbeheldaccountablefor
thepublicinterest.

Finally,therespondentdeniesusinganyintemperate,vulgar,orunprofessionallanguage.On
[9]
the contrary, he asserts that it was the complainants who resorted to intemperate and vulgar

languageinaccusinghimofextortingfromRosarioshockingandunconscionableattorneysfees.

Aftercarefulconsiderationoftherecordsofthiscaseandthepartiessubmissions,wefind
ourselvesinagreementwiththefindingsandrecommendationoftheIBPBoardofGovernors.

Itisworthstressingthatthepracticeoflawisnotarightbutaprivilegebestowedbythe
State upon those who show that they possess, and[10]
continue to possess, the qualifications

requiredbylawfortheconfermentofsuchprivilege. Membershipinthebarisaprivilege
burdenedwithconditions.Alawyerhastheprivilegeandrighttopracticelawonlyduringgood
behaviorandcanonlybedeprivedofitformisconductascertainedanddeclaredbyjudgmentof
the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any
constitutional privilege or right, an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a
proceedingtosuspendordisbarhim,basedonconductrenderinghimunfittoholdalicenseor
toexercisethedutiesandresponsibilitiesofanattorney.Itmustbeunderstoodthatthepurpose
of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose
misconducthasprovedhimunfittobeentrustedwiththedutiesandresponsibilitiesbelongingto
[11] [12]
anofficeofanattorney,andthustoprotectthepublicandthosechargedwiththeadministration

ofjustice,ratherthantopunishtheattorney. InMaligsav.Cabanting, weexplainedthat

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,tothebar,tothecourtsandtohisclients.Tothisendamemberofthelegalprofession
should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 3/8
10/20/2016 A.C.No.5859

reposedbythepublicinthefidelity,honestyandintegrityofthelegalprofession.An attorney
maybedisbarredorsuspendedforanyviolationofhisoathorofhisdutiesasanattorneyand
counselor,whichincludestatutorygroundsenumeratedinSection27,Rule138oftheRulesof
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
Resolutionsuspendinghimfromthepracticeoflawforoneyear.Insummary,therespondent
filedagainsthisformerclient,herfamilymembers,thefamilycorporationofhisformerclient,
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
favorablejudgment,andthepresentcounselofhisformerclient,atotaloftwelve(12)different
casesinvariousforawhichincludedtheSecuritiesandExchangeCommissiontheProvincial
[13]
ProsecutorsOfficeofTagum,DavaotheDavaoCityProsecutorsOfficetheIBPCommission

onBarDisciplinetheDepartmentofAgrarianReformandtheSupremeCourt.

In addition to the twelve (12) cases filed, the respondent also refiled cases which had
previously been dismissed. The respondent filed six criminal cases against members of the
MercadofamilyseparatelydocketedasI.S.Nos.9713597136971379713897139and
[14]
97140. With the exception of I.S. No. 97139, all the aforementioned cases are refiling of

previouslydismissedcases.

Now,thereisnothingethicallyremissinalawyerwhofilesnumerouscasesindifferent
fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without any ill
motiveorpurposeotherthantoachievejusticeandfairness.In the present case, however, we
findthatthebarrageofcasesfiledbytherespondentagainsthisformerclientandotherscloseto
herwasmeanttooverwhelmsaidclientandtoshowherthattherespondentdoesnotfoldeasily
afterhewasmetedapenaltyofoneyearsuspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.

The nature of the cases filed by the respondent, the fact of refiling them after being
dismissed,thetimingofthefilingofcases,thefactthattherespondentwasinconspiracywitha
renegade member of the complainants family,[15]
the defendants named in the cases and the foul

language used in the pleadings and motions all indicate that the respondent was acting
beyondthedesireforjusticeandfairness.Hisactoffilingabarrageofcasesappearstobeanact
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 4/8
10/20/2016 A.C.No.5859

of revenge and hate driven by anger and frustration against his former client who filed the
disciplinarycomplaintagainsthimforinfidelityinthecustodyofaclientsfunds.
[16]

In the case of Prieto v. Corpuz, the Court pronounced that it is professionally

irresponsibleforalawyertofilefrivolouslawsuits.Thus,westatedinPrieto,
Atty. Marcos V. Prieto[17]
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

exercisedingoodfaith.

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
workloadofthejudiciary.

Alawyerispartofthemachineryintheadministrationofjustice.Likethecourtitself,heisan
instrument to advance its ends the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive
adjudicationofcasesandthepromptsatisfactionoffinaljudgments.Alawyershouldnotonly
help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid
[18]any unethical or improper practices that
impede,obstructorpreventtheirrealization,chargedasheiswiththeprimarytaskofassistingin

the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilitypromulgatedon21June1988isveryexplicitthatlawyersmustexerteveryeffort
andconsiderittheirdutytoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.

Further,therespondentnotonlyfiledfrivolousandunfoundedlawsuitsthatviolatedhis
dutiesasanofficerofthecourtinaidingintheproperadministrationofjustice,buthedidso
[19]
againstaformerclienttowhomheowesloyaltyandfidelity.Canon21andRule21.02ofthe

CodeofProfessionalResponsibility provides:
CANON 21 A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the
attorneyclientrelationisterminated.

Rule21.02Alawyershallnot,tothedisadvantageofhisclient,useinformationacquiredinthe
courseofemployment,norshallheusethesametohisownadvantageorthatofathirdperson,
unlesstheclientwithfullknowledgeofthecircumstancesconsentsthereto.

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 Rosarios counsel.
Informationastothestructureandoperationsofthefamilycorporation,privatedocuments,and
otherpertinentfactsandfiguresusedasbasisorinsupportofthecasesfiledbytherespondent
in pursuit of his malicious motives were all acquired through the attorneyclient relationship
withhereincomplainants.SuchactisindirectviolationoftheCanonsandwillnotbetolerated
bytheCourt.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 5/8
10/20/2016 A.C.No.5859

WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.EduardoC.DeVeraisherebyDISBARREDfromthe
practiceoflaweffectiveimmediatelyuponhisreceiptofthisResolution.

LetcopiesofthisResolutionbefurnishedtheBarConfidanttobespreadontherecordsof
the respondent the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters and the
OfficeoftheCourtAdministratorfordisseminationtoallcourtsthroughoutthecountry.

SOORDERED.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR. ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 6/8
10/20/2016 A.C.No.5859

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR. JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



[1]
Onofficialleave.
Rollo,p.254.InitsResolutionNo.XV2002391,theIBPBoardofGovernorsresolvedasfollows:

to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the aboveentitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex A
and,findingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,and
considering that the Commission finds convincing, indeed compelling evidence to sustain the indictment against
Atty.EduardoC.DeVeraforprofessionalmalpracticeandgrossmisconductconsistingofbarratry,abuseofjudicial
proceedingsandprocesses,exploitingafamilyspersonalproblemforvengefulandillegalpurposesandemploying
[2] unprofessional, intemperate and abusive language, Respondent is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
ThecounterpetitionagainstAtty.CarmenLeonorM.AlcantaraisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
[3]
CommissionerRenatoG.Cunanan,ReportdatedNovember23,2001,rollo,pp.256281.
[4]
Rollo,p.264.
[5]
Id.at265.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Rollo,pp.265266.
SEC.27.DisbarmentorsuspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourt,groundstherefor.Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarredor
suspendedfromhisofficeasattorneybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpractice,orothergrossmisconductinsuchoffice,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
whichheisrequiredtotakebeforeadmissiontopractice,orforawilfuldisobedienceappearingasanattorneyforapartytoacase
withoutauthoritysotodo.Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawforthepurposeofgain,eitherpersonallyorthroughpaidagents
orbrokers,constitutesmalpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign
jurisdictionwherehehasalsobeenadmittedasanattorneyisagroundforhisdisbarmentorsuspensionifthebasisofsuchaction
includesanyoftheactshereinaboveenumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for
[8]
disbarmentorsuspension.
[9]
Rollo,p.267.
[10]
Id.at267268.
[11] Mecaralv.Velasquez,A.C.No.8392(FormerlyCBDCaseNo.082175),June29,2010,p.4,citingMendozav.Deciembre,A.C.
No.5338,February23,2009,580SCRA26,36YapParasv.Paras,A.C.No.4947,February14,2005,451SCRA194,202.
[12]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 7/8
10/20/2016 A.C.No.5859
[12]
Marcelov.Javier,Sr.,A.C.No.3248,September18,1992,214SCRA1,13.
[13]
A.C.No.4539,May14,1997,272SCRA408,413.
[14]
Rollo,pp.270273.
[15]
Id.at273274.
[16]
Id.at278280.
[17]
A.C.No.6517,December6,2006,510SCRA1,1112.
[18]
Duduacov.Laquindanum,A.M.No.MTJ051601(OCAI.P.INo.021213MTJ),August11,2005,466SCRA428,435.
[19] Citing Agpalo, COMMENTS ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT,p.117(2004Ed.).
PromulgatedbytheSupremeCourtonJune21,1988.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/5859.htm 8/8