ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.C. No. 3066. July 12, 2000]
J.K. MERCADO & SONS AGRICULTURAL ENT., INC. vs. EDUARDO DE VERA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated
JUL 12, 2000.A.C. No. 3066. (J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc., vs. Eduardo De Vera, et al.)
A.C. No. 4438. (Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera, vs. Atty. Mervyn G. Encanto, et al.)
In its resolution of 26 October 1999, the Court resolved, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in administrative Case No. 3066, Resolution No. X-83-41, dated 23 March 1993, of the IBP Board of Governors, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and he is further DIRECTED to return to Rosario K. Mercado the amount in his possession in excess of P350,000.00, without prejudice to whatever judicial action he may take to recover his unsatisfied attorney's fees, if any. His suspension stands until he has satisfactorily shown to the Court his compliance therewith. Copies of this resolution shall be circulated to all courts of the country and spread on the personal record of Atty. De Vera.
"Administrative Case No. 4438 is DISMISSED for lack of merit."
In the resolution of 02 February 2000, the Court denied with finality respondent's motion for reconsideration.
For the Court's consideration are -
(1) An "Urgent Motion to Lift remaining suspension," dated 13 March 2000, filed by Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera;
(2) A "Motion for Leave to File and Admit Attached Manifestation and Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution," dated 15 March 2000, and "Manifestation and Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution," dated 15 March 2000, filed by complainant Rosario P. Mercado;
(3) A "Motion for Leave to File and Admit Attached Manifestation (Re: Practice Despite Suspension of Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera)," dated 27 March 2000, and "Manifestation (Re: Practice despite Suspension of Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera)" dated 27 March 2000, filed by complainant Rosario P. Mercado;
(4) Letters, dated 11 February 2000, Of Mr. Jose Q. Elises, and dated 08 March 2000, of Capt. Edward F. Ranada, both of Davao City, inquiring whether Atty. De Vera is allowed to practice law pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration of the Court's resolution of 26 October 1999;
(5) "Comment and Opposition (to Manifestation and Motion for Writ of Execution)," dated 31 March 2000, filed by respondent Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera;
(6) "Urgent manifestation," dated 24 May 2000, filed by respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera; and
(7) "Counter-manifestation," dated 19 June 2000, filed by complainant.
An order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law is immediately executory if the Court so states or when the Court so declares its order to be effective upon the receipt thereof by the lawyer. In this instance, since the Court is silent on the effectivity date of its order of suspension, and because Atty. De Vera has filed a timely motion for the reconsideration thereof, the date of its effectivity should be reckoned from the receipt of the denial with finality of the motion for reconsideration. Per the certification by Postmaster Cipriano C. Pagaduan of Makati Central Post Office, Atty. Eduardo De los Angeles, counsel for respondent, received a copy of the Court's resolution of 02 February 2000, through his authorized representative, on 22 February 2000. On even date, the authorized representative of Atty. De Vera also received a copy of the same resolution, certified by Postmaster Agustina J. Niepes of Davao City. Atty. De Vera's suspension thus become effective on 22 February 2000 and his continued appearances prior thereto, but not thereafter, would still be appropriate.
It would appear that Atty. De Vera entered his appearance as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 91,503-F-99, ("People vs. Nilda Cuison Go") and in Criminal Case 57,912-f-92 ("People vs. Noelito Egot") on 07March 2000, both before the MTCC, Branch 6, of Davao City. Atty. De Vera likewise filed a " Manifestation on Offer of Amicable Settlement," dated 24 February 2000, before the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation ("HIGC"). Atty. De Vera explained his appearances in the criminal cases, aforestated, as follows:
"12. However, the mere appearance of respondent De Vera in Court does not amount to the practice of law, particularly under the circumstances narrated by respondent to the undersigned as follows:
"12.1 On March 7, 2000, respondent De Vera accompanied his client Rosalina Lo verify the status of her case in court against a certain Nilda Cuison Go and learned that there was a 'mix up' in the docketing of two complainants against Nilda Cuison Go for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
"12.2 Rosalina Lo's case against Nilda Cuison Go was docketed as Criminal Case No. 91-503-F-99. However, another case against Nilda Cuison Go filed by Menardo Palmera was also docketed as Criminal Case No. 91-503-F-99, although filed on a different date. Copy of the two Informations are attached as Annexes '1' and '2.'
"12.3 They also learned that Criminal Case No. 91-503 was sent for pre-trial on the date in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 6. When Criminal Case No. 91-503 was called, both Rosalina Lo and Menardo Palmera stood up after the judge asked if the complainant was around. It was then that respondent De Vera volunteered to help the judge resolve the 'mix up' by showing the judge a duplicate original of the Information filed by the City Prosecutor's Office of Davao City upon the instance of Rosalina Lo and the date it was filed. The judge then expressed the view that there must have been an error committed by the Office of the Clerk of Court in Numbering both Informations against the same accused. It was found out that Rosalina Lo's complaint was actually docketed as criminal Case No. 91-276 and was raffled to another judge.
"Accompanying his client to verify the status of a case and in the process, untangling the erroneous docketing of the case does not amount to the practice of law.
"13. As regards Criminal Case No. 57912, the transcript shows that respondent De Vera merely appeared to inform the Court that he was voluntarily desisting from being the private prosecutor because of his suspension. Attached as Annex '3' is the transcript of the proceedings which clearly shows respondent De Vera's manifestation:
"x x x Anyway, your Honor, I am desisting from appearing in this case.'
"Certainly, it behooves respondent De Vera to inform the Trial Court of his suspension and that he could no longer represent his client so that the Trial Court would grant a postponement to give his client the opportunity to look for another lawyer."
Without ruling at this time on the explanation proffered by respondent on his appearances in Criminal Cases No. 91,503-F-99 and no. 57,912-F-92. Atty. De Vera is required to explain his filing of a "Manifestation on Offer of Amicable Settlement" Before the HIGC despite having received a copy of the denial with finality of his motion for the reconsideration of his suspension.
Anent respondent's motion to lift his suspension on the ground that he has already complied with the directive of the Court to return to complainant the money in his possession, respondent might be reminded that his suspension from the practice of law is for at least six (6) months. The statement of the Court that his suspension stands until he would have satisfactorily shown his compliance with the Court's resolution is a caveat that his suspension could thereby extend for more that six months. The lifting of a lawyer's suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the Court's decision, and an order from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to enable him to resume the practice of his profession.
Considering, with respect to complainant's motion for execution, that the IBP has failed to determine the exact amount given by complainant to respondent, this case is remanded to the IBP for the determination of the amount in respondent's possession. IBP is directed to make its report not later than 30 days from receipt of the records of this case.
Respondent's manifestation, dated 24 May 2000, and complainant's counter-manifestation, dated 19 June 2000, are NOTED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
