Facts: Rosario Mercado won in a civil case with Atty.

Eduardo De Vera as her legal

counsel. Upon execution of the decision and collection of bank deposits for Mercado, Atty.
De Vera refused to turn over the proceeds, saying that the money was used to pay court
fees and the remaining are his as attorney’s fees.
Mercado filed a disbarment case against Atty. De Vera for infidelity in the custody and
handling client’s funds. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines sanctioned Atty. De Vera
with a suspension of practice for one (1) year. Following this, Atty. De Vera filed baseless
lawsuits against most of the members of the Mercado Family under different jurisdictions.
He also filed cases against IBP governors who recommended his suspension.
Mercado contents that Atty. De Vera is exploiting their personal family problems just to
pursue unwarranted cases. She also alleged that Atty. De Vera is guilty of forum shopping
and harassment for the filing of baseless charges.

Atty. De Vera contends that he is only exhausting all the available legal remedies, and
that the charges filed against members of the Mercado family were done in good faith.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Vera violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
instituting baseless and unwarranted suits that are only aimed to harass Mercado and her
family.

Held: Atty. De Vera was found guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility for raising unfounded lawsuits against the Mercado family and
several IBP board members who recommended his suspension.

Such act is deemed retaliatory and is unbecoming of a member of the bar who should
uphold the integrity, honesty and dignity of the legal profession. Atty. De Vera was
disbarred permanently from practice.

EN BANC

A.C. No. 5859 November 23, 2010

(Formerly CBD Case No. 421)

ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA, VICENTE P. MERCADO, SEVERINO P. MERCADO AND SPOUSES
JESUS AND ROSARIO MERCADO, Complainants,

Vs.

ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

For our review is the Resolution1 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 Regional Trial Court of Davao City and an administrative case filed before the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Davao City Extension Office.3

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 Rosario. Rosario demanded that the respondent turn over the
proceeds of the garnishment, but the latter refused claiming that he had paid part of the money to the
judge while the balance was his, as attorney’s fees. Such refusal prompted Rosario to file an
administrative case for disbarment against the respondent.4

On March 23, 1993, the IBP Board of Governors promulgated a Resolution holding the respondent guilty
of infidelity in the custody and handling of client’s funds and recommending to the Court his one-year
suspension from the practice of law.5

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 Rosario. Later on, the respondent
also filed cases against the chairman and members of the IBP Board of Governors who voted to
recommend his suspension from the practice of law for 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 against the
complainants and their family members, their lawyers, and the family corporation.6 They maintain that
the primary purpose of the cases is to harass and to exact revenge for the one-year suspension from the
practice of law meted out by the IBP against the respondent. Thus, they pray that the respondent be
disbarred for malpractice and gross misconduct under Section 27,7 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
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 Rosario shocking and unconscionable attorney’s fees.”9

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 for a 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 for a, 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 motions15 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.1avvphil 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
Responsibility19 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.