Facts:

In the case of A.C. No. 5859, Atty. Carmen Leonor M. Alcantara, Vicente P. Mercado, Severino P. Mercado and Spouses Jesus and Rosario Mercado vs. Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera, the complaint was filed against Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera, who was formerly the legal counsel of Rosario P. Mercado in a civil case commenced in 1984 at the Regional Trial Court in Davao City. A favorable ruling led to a writ of execution pending appeal favoring Rosario, prompting De Vera to garnish the bank deposits of the defendant. However, he failed to turn over the garnished proceeds to Rosario, claiming part of it as attorney's fees. Upon his refusal to remit the funds, Rosario initiated an administrative disbarment case against him. In March 1993, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found De Vera guilty of infidelity concerning client funds and recommended a one-year suspension from practice. Following this, De Vera instituted multiple lawsuits against the Mercado family and the IBP members i

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera, a member of the Philippine Bar, who previously served as counsel for Rosario P. Mercado in both a civil case (filed in 1984 at the Regional Trial Court of Davao City) and an administrative case before the Securities and Exchange Commission, Davao City Extension Office.
• A favorable decision in the civil case led to the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal in favor of Rosario P. Mercado.

The Controversial Transaction

• As counsel, Atty. De Vera garnished bank deposits belonging to the defendant according to the writ of execution.
• Instead of turning over the proceeds of the garnishment to his former client, Rosario, he diverted the funds by claiming that part of the money was used to pay the judge and the balance constituted his attorney’s fees.
• Rosario Mercado’s demand for the proceeds led to an administrative complaint for disbarment against the respondent.

The Disciplinary Proceedings

• On March 23, 1993, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors promulgated a Resolution.
• The IBP Resolution found Atty. De Vera guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of a client’s funds and recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
• The disciplinary findings were based on undisputed facts as noted by the investigating commissioner, supported by evidence contained in the record (e.g., payments made and alleged misappropriation of client funds).

Subsequent Litigation and Misconduct

• Following the IBP Resolution, the respondent filed a series of lawsuits against members of the Mercado family (except George Mercado), the family corporation, a familial accountant, and even against the judge who ruled against reopening the civil case.
• He also initiated cases against the chairman and members of the IBP Board of Governors who recommended his suspension.
• The complainants alleged that these multiple cases constituted barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of family issues, and the use of intemperate, abusive language, with the primary intent to harass and exact revenge for his suspension.

Respondent's Defense

• Atty. De Vera denied the charges, asserting that:
• He did not commit barratry and was not responsible for instigating litigation against Rosario’s family members.
• The lawsuits were filed in good faith, based on solid factual grounds, and not meant as harassment.
• His actions in seeking relief in different fora were due to the trial court’s denial to reopen the civil case to justify his attorney’s fees.
• He further refuted the charges of exploitation and abusive language by claiming that any intemperate remarks were actually made by the complainants.

Nature and Implications of the Misconduct

• The court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege subject to continued qualifications and conduct of good behavior.
• The respondent’s actions, particularly after the IBP slapped him with a one-year suspension, culminated in filing a barrage of cases designed to overwhelm his former client.
• His re-filing of dismissed cases, the timing of his filings, naming of defendants, and use of offensive language indicated an act driven by revenge and malicious intent rather than a bona fide pursuit of justice.

Issue:

Professional Misconduct

• Whether the respondent’s handling of his client’s funds and refusal to turn over garnished proceeds constitutes professional malpractice and infidelity in the custody of client funds.
• Whether his subsequent filing of multiple lawsuits against his former client and related parties, including re-filing dismissed cases, demonstrates gross misconduct and a violation of the ethical standards expected of lawyers.

Abuse of the Right to Litigate

• Whether Atty. De Vera’s barrage of lawsuits amounted to barratry, forum shopping, and abuse of judicial processes for vengeful purposes rather than for legitimate legal claims.
• Whether his conduct, including the alleged use of intemperate and abusive language, violates the standards of propriety and decorum required of officers of the court.

Conflict with Professional Duties

• Whether the actions of the respondent—in particular, revealing confidential client information and exploiting familial issues—breached his duty of loyalty and fidelity as mandated by Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether the respondent’s behavior, following a disciplinary finding, undermines the integrity and trust in the legal profession, justifying his disbarment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)