Facts:

• The case involves a disbarment complaint filed by J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc., and the spouses Jesus and Rosario K. Mercado against Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera.
• The complaint originated from a civil case entitled "Rosario P. Mercado vs. Jesus R. Mercado, Mercado and Sons, and Standard Fruits Corporation," docketed as Civil Case No. 17215.
• The civil case was for the dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership, accounting, support pendente lite, annulment of contract, reconveyance or recovery of possession of conjugal share, partition, damages, and attorney's fees.
• The case was assigned to Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, presided over by Judge Jose Bandalan.
• Rosario Mercado was represented by Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera.
• On December 15, 1986, the case was decided in favor of Rosario Mercado, awarding her over P9 million.
• A writ of execution was issued, and notices of garnishment were served on several banks, resulting in the garnishment of P1,270,734.66.
• On February 26, 1987, Rosario Mercado terminated the services of Atty. De Vera and tendered P350,000.00 as attorney's fees.
• Rosario Mercado demanded an accounting and turnover of the remaining money, but Atty. De Vera refused, claiming entitlement to P2,254,217.00 in attorney's fees.
• Failing to recover the amount, Rosario Mercado filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. De Vera.
• The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The IBP Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension for Atty. De Vera, which the Supreme Court modified to six months.
• Atty. De Vera was ordered to return the excess amount of P350,000.00 still in his possession to Rosario Mercado.
• Despite the suspension, Atty. De Vera continued to practice law, leading to further complaints and motions.
• The IBP found that Atty. De Vera still had P381,859.61 in his possession that should be returned to Rosario Mercado.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. Yes, Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera engaged in unauthorized practice of law during his suspension.
2. Yes, Atty. De Vera is still in possession of...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court found that Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera engaged in unauthorized practice of law during his suspension.
• The IBP's investigation revealed multiple instances where Atty. De Vera appeared in court, signed pleadings, and performed other legal activities despite his suspension.
• The Court emphasized that the practi...continue reading