ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.C. No. 3066. October 25, 2000]

J.K. MERCADO & SONS AGRI'L. ENT., et al. vs. EDUARDO DE VERA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 25 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. Ancanto, et al.)

In its resolution of 14 August 2000, the letter, dated 19 May 2000, of Atty. Honesto A. Cabarroguis, regarding respondent Atty. Eduardo De Vera's "contumacious violation of the order of suspension" imposed upon the latter by the Court, was noted. The letter of Atty. Cabarroguis pertains to respondent De Vera's "practice of law" during his suspension by passing several notes to the latter's son, Atty. Francis Arnold De Vera, purportedly to guide him during the direct examination of a witness. In his reply to the accusation, Atty. De Vera averred that he was inside the courtroom as part of the audience and the note he gave his son was meant only to call his attention to the arrival of one of the witnesses to the case.

It has come to the attention of the Court that the suspension order imposed on Atty. De Vera already spawned a number of allegations and counter-allegations (some of which were already noted by the Court in its resolutions) regarding his alleged "practice of law" bereft of any proclamation from the Court lifting such suspension. In the resolution of 12 July 2000, respondent was already forewarned that "(t)he 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." To determine whether Atty. De Vera indeed, in a number of occasions, violated the suspension order, the Court deems it necessary to again refer the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP") for investigation, report and recommendation within thirty (30) days. Let it be made clear, however, that this sixty-day period will not and does not extend the thirty-day (30) period granted to the IBP in the resolution of 12 July 2000, relative to the motion for execution filed by complainant, to determine the exact amount given to respondent. The IBP is directed to promptly submit to the Court its report thereon without awaiting the result of the investigation of this new matter now being referred to it.

Accordingly, the Court Resolved to refer the matter of Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera's alleged unauthorized practice of law to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation within thirty (30) days. The Court further Resolved to Note the (a) Manifestation, dated 03 August 2000, filed by counsel for Atty. De Vera; (b) Comment, dated 17 August 2000 filed by counsel for complainants; (c) Reply, dated 19 September 2000, filed by counsel for respondent; and (d) Opposition, dated 12 October 2000, filed by counsel for complainants.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE