Velez vs. Atty. De Vera, AC No.

6697, July 25, 2006

Facts of the case:

Complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez moved for the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent Atty.
Leonard deVera based on the following grounds:

1) Atty. De Veras alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension order rendered against him by
the State Bar ofCalifornia.

2) That the respondent, in appropriating for his own benefit funds due his client, was found to have
performed an act constituting moral turpitude by the Hearing Referee Bill Dozier, Hearing Department,
San Francisco, State Bar ofCalifornia. Complainant alleged that the respondent was then forced to resign
or surrender his license to practice law inthe said state in order to evade the recommended 3 year
suspension. Complainant maintained that there is substantial evidence showing respondent's moral
baseness, vileness and depravity, which could be used as a basis for his disbarment. Complainant stressed
that the respondent never denied that he used his client's money. Complainant argued that the respondent
failed to present evidence that the SC of California accepted the latter's resignation and even if such was
accepted, complainant posited that this should not absolve the respondent from liability.

Issue:

Whether respondent’s malpractice amounts to moral turpitude.

Held:

YES. Atty. de Vera did not deny complainant's (Julius Willis) allegation in the latter's memorandum that
he (de Vera) received US$12,000.00 intended for his client and that he deposited said amount in his
personal account and not in a separate trust account and that, finally, he spent the amount for personal
purposes. Atty. De Vera insists that Julius’ father authorized him to use the money, and has repayed the
full amount even before the administrative case was filed against him. However, aside from these self-
serving statements, the SC cannot find anywhere in the records of this case proof that indeed Atty. de
Vera was duly authorized to use the funds of his client.

In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in holding on to his client’s money without the latter’s
acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by
depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty of deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. Nevertheless, we do not agree with complainant’s
plea to disbar respondent from the practice of law. Considering the amount involved here, a 2-year
suspension is appropriate.