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: CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO,* ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA, and SERENO, JJ. |
ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA, Respondent. | Promulgated: November 23, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
x x x.
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 Rosario’s counsel. Information as to the structure and operations of the family corporation, private documents, and other pertinent facts and figures used as basis or in support of the cases filed by the respondent in pursuit of his malicious motives were all acquired through the attorney-client relationship with herein complainants. Such act is in direct violation of the Canons and will not be tolerated by the Court.
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 Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
* 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 November 23, 2001, rollo, pp. 256-281.
[5] Id.
[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.
[9] Id. at 267-268.
[10] Mecaral v. Velasquez, A.C. No. 8392 (Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175), June 29, 2010, p. 4, citing Mendoza v. Deciembre, A.C. No. 5338, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 26, 36; Yap-Paras v. Paras, A.C. No. 4947, February 14, 2005, 451 SCRA 194, 202.
[12] A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408, 413.
[14] Id. at 273-274.
[15] Id. at 278-280.
[16] A.C. No. 6517, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 1, 11-12.
[17] Duduaco v. Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601 (OCA-I.P.I No. 02-1213-MTJ), August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 428, 435.
[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 June 21, 1988.
No comments:
Post a Comment