Alcantara vs. De Vera

A lawyer may be disbarred for professional malpractice and gross misconduct when he files a barrage of frivolous and vindictive lawsuits against his former client and others to harass and exact revenge, as such conduct violates his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and his obligation to preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.

The respondent was a member of the Bar and 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 before the Securities and Exchange Commission, Davao City Extension Office. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a lawyer may be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard. The purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit, and to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.

The respondent, Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera, 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. Pursuant to a favorable decision, a writ of execution pending appeal was issued in favor of Rosario. The respondent, as her legal counsel, garnished the bank deposits of the defendant but did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. When Rosario demanded the proceeds, the respondent refused, claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge while the balance was his as attorney's fees. This refusal prompted Rosario to file an administrative case for disbarment against the respondent.

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. Following the release of the IBP Resolution, the respondent filed a series of lawsuits against the Mercado family except George Mercado. He also instituted cases against the family corporation, the corporation's accountant, and the judge who ruled against the reopening of the case where the respondent tried to collect the balance of his alleged fee from Rosario. Later, the respondent also filed cases against the chairman and members of the IBP Board of Governors who voted to recommend his suspension.

The complainants alleged 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 them and their family members, their lawyers, and the family corporation. They maintained that the primary purpose of the cases was to harass and to exact revenge for the one-year suspension meted out by the IBP. In total, the respondent filed twelve different cases in various fora, including 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. In addition, the respondent re-filed cases which had previously been dismissed, including 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, all but one of which were re-filings of previously dismissed cases.

In his defense, the respondent denied the charges, insisting that the lawsuits were filed in good faith and based on strong facts, that he was merely exhausting the remedies allowed by law, and that he did not use intemperate language. The Court found the nature of the cases filed, the fact of re-filing them after dismissal, the timing of the filing, the conspiracy with a renegade member of the complainants' family, the defendants named, and the foul language used in the pleadings all indicated that the respondent was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness, and that his acts were driven by anger and frustration against his former client.

• Barratry and Harassment: Complainants alleged 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 them and their family members, their lawyers, and the family corporation.
• Revenge as Primary Purpose: Complainants maintained that the primary purpose of the cases filed by the respondent was to harass and to exact revenge for the one-year suspension from the practice of law meted out by the IBP against him.
• Prayer for Disbarment: Complainants prayed that the respondent be disbarred for malpractice and gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

• Denial of Barratry: The respondent denied that he committed barratry by instigating or stirring up George Mercado to file lawsuits against the complainants, insisting that the lawsuits were not harassment suits but were filed in good faith and based on strong facts.
• Denial of Forum Shopping: The respondent denied engaging in forum shopping, arguing that he was merely exhausting the remedies allowed by law and was 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.
• Denial of Exploitation: The respondent denied exploiting the problems of his client's family, arguing that the case he and George Mercado filed arose from their perception of unlawful transgressions committed by the latter for which they must be held accountable for the public interest.
• Denial of Intemperate Language: The respondent denied using intemperate, vulgar, or unprofessional language, asserting that it was the complainants who resorted to such language in accusing him of "extorting from Rosario shocking and unconscionable attorney's fees."

• Professional Malpractice and Gross Misconduct: Whether the respondent committed professional malpractice and gross misconduct warranting disbarment for filing a barrage of frivolous and vindictive lawsuits against his former client and others.
• Barratry: Whether the respondent committed barratry by instigating lawsuits against the complainants.
• Forum Shopping: Whether the respondent engaged in forum shopping by filing multiple cases in various fora.
• Violation of Client Confidentiality: Whether the respondent violated Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using information acquired during the attorney-client relationship to the disadvantage of his former client.

• Professional Malpractice and Gross Misconduct: Yes. The respondent committed professional malpractice and gross misconduct by filing twelve different cases against his former client, her family members, the family corporation, the IBP Board of Governors, the trial court judge, and the present counsel of his former client, which were meant to overwhelm and harass the client in retaliation for his one-year suspension.
• Barratry: Yes. The nature of the cases filed, the re-filing of dismissed cases, the timing of the filings, and the conspiracy with a renegade family member indicated the respondent was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness, constituting barratry.
• Forum Shopping: Yes. The respondent re-filed cases which had previously been dismissed, including six criminal cases against members of the Mercado family, five of which were re-filings of previously dismissed cases, indicating forum shopping.
• Violation of Client Confidentiality: Yes. The cases filed by the respondent against his former client involved matters and information acquired during the attorney-client relationship, including information as to the structure and operations of the family corporation, private documents, and other pertinent facts, in direct violation of Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Professional Malpractice and Gross Misconduct: The Court found that while there is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in different fora when done in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without ill-motive, the respondent's barrage of cases was meant to overwhelm his former client and to show her that he does not fold easily after being meted a penalty of one-year suspension. The nature of the cases filed, the fact of re-filing them after dismissal, the timing of the filing, the conspiracy with a renegade member of the complainants' family, the defendants named, and the foul language used in the pleadings all indicated that the respondent was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His act of filing a barrage of cases appeared 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.
• Barratry: Citing Prieto vs. Corpuz, the Court pronounced that it is professionally irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous lawsuits. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, this right must be exercised in good faith. As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice, and they do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary.
• Forum Shopping: The Court noted that the respondent re-filed cases which had previously been dismissed, including six criminal cases against members of the Mercado family, five of which were re-filings of previously dismissed cases. This conduct, together with the other circumstances, demonstrated that the respondent was not acting in good faith but was pursuing a malicious motive.
• Violation of Client Confidentiality: The Court held that the cases filed by the respondent against his former client involved matters and information acquired 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 the complainants. Such act is in direct violation of Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require a lawyer to preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated, and prohibit the use of such information to the disadvantage of the client.

• Practice of law as a privilege — 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. 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.
• Purpose of disbarment — 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.
• Frivolous lawsuits as professional irresponsibility — It is professionally irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous lawsuits. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, this right must be exercised in good faith. As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice and do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary.
• Lawyer as officer of the court — 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.
• Preservation of client's confidence — A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated, and 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.

• "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." — This passage establishes the foundational principle that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, which underlies the Court's authority to disbar lawyers for misconduct.
• "Now, there is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in different fora, 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." — This passage articulates the standard against which the respondent's conduct was measured, distinguishing legitimate litigation from harassment suits.
• "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 motions all indicate that the respondent was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness." — This passage summarizes the totality of circumstances that led the Court to conclude the respondent's lawsuits were acts of revenge rather than legitimate legal pursuits.
• "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." — This passage defines the lawyer's role in the administration of justice and explains why filing frivolous lawsuits violates the lawyer's professional duties.

• Mecaral vs. Velasquez, A.C. No. 8392, June 29, 2010 — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who possess the qualifications required by law.
• Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 1, 13 — Cited for the principle that the purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit, and to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.
• Maligsa vs. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408, 413 — Cited for the explanation that the bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing, and that 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.
• Prieto vs. Corpuz, A.C. No. 6517, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 1, 11-12 — Cited as controlling precedent for the pronouncement that it is professionally irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous lawsuits.
• Duduaco vs. Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601, August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 428, 435 — Cited for the principle that although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, this right must be exercised in good faith.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — The statutory ground for disbarment or suspension of attorneys, which provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended 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 required before admission to practice. The respondent was disbarred pursuant to this provision.
• Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The respondent violated this canon by filing frivolous and unfounded lawsuits.
• Canon 21, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. The respondent violated this canon by using information acquired during the attorney-client relationship against his former client.
• Rule 21.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that 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 respondent violated this rule by using information about the family corporation and other confidential matters in the cases he filed against his former client.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno. Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta was on official leave.