*

A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003.

IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA, ON

LEGAL AND MORAL GROUNDS, FROM BEING ELECTED IBP
GOVERNOR FOR EASTERN MINDANAO IN THE MAY 31, IBP
ELECTIONS.

OLIVER OWEN L. GARCIA, EMMANUEL RAVANERA and TONY VELEZ,

petitioners,  vs.  ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA and IBP BOARD OF
GOVERNORS, respondents.

Attorneys; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Implicit in the constitutional grant to

the Supreme Court of the power to promulgate rules affecting the IBP is the power to
supervise all the activities of the IBP, including the election of its officers.—Section 5,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution confers on the Supreme Court the power to
promulgate rules affecting the IBP, thus: Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers: . . . . (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and the legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(Emphasis supplied) Implicit in this constitutional grant is the power to supervise all
the activities of the IBP, including the election of its officers.
Same;  Same;  Words and Phrases;  The term “Bar” refers to the “collectivity of all
persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys.”—The above-quoted sections in
both the 1987 and 1935 Constitution and the

_______________

* EN BANC.

28

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

similarly worded provision in the intervening 1973 Constitution through all the
years have been the sources of this Court’s authority to supervise individual members of
the Bar. The term “Bar” refers to the “collectivity of all persons whose names appear in
the Roll of Attorneys.” Pursuant to this power of supervision, the Court initiated the
integration of the Philippine Bar by creating on October 5, 1970 the Commission on Bar
Integration, which was tasked to ascertain the advisability of unifying the Philippine
Bar. Not long after, Republic Act No. 6397 was enacted and it confirmed the power of
the Supreme Court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar. Finally, on January 1,
1973, in the  per curiam  Resolution of this Court captioned “In the Matter of the
Integration of the Bar to the Philippines,” we ordained the Integration of the Philippine
Bar in accordance with Rule 139-A, of the Rules of Court, which we promulgated
pursuant to our rule-making power under the 1935 Constitution.
Same; Same; In the aftermath of the controversy which arose during the 1989 IBP
elections, the Supreme Court deemed it best to amend the nomination and election
processes for Regional Governors, which changes simplified the election process and thus
made it less controversial—the grounds for disqualification were reduced, if not totally
eradicated; Under the present IBP By-Laws, the instant petition for disqualification of a
member from being elected IBP Governor has no firm ground to stand on.—In the
aftermath of the controversy which arose during the 1989 IBP elections, this Court
deemed it best to amend the nomination and election processes for Regional Governors.
The Court localized the elections, i.e., each Regional Governor is nominated and elected
by the delegates of the concerned region, and adopted the rotation process through the
following provisions, to wit: x x x The changes adopted by the Court simplified the
election process and thus made it less controversial. The grounds for disqualification
were reduced, if not totally eradicated, for the pool from which the Delegates may choose
their nominees is diminished as the rotation process operates. The simplification of the
process was in line with this Court’s vision of an Integrated Bar which is non-political
and effective in the discharge of its role in elevating the standards of the legal
profession, improving the administration of justice and contributing to the growth and
progress of the Philippine society. The effect of the new election process convinced this
Court to remove the provision on disqualification proceedings. Consequently, under the
present IBP By-Laws, the instant petition has no firm ground to stand on.
Same;  Same;  Only IBP members from Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte are
qualified to be nominated and elected at the election for the 16th Regional Governor of
Eastern Mindanao pursuant to the rotation rule enunciated in Sections 37 and 38 of the
IBP By-Laws.—Truly, with the applicability of Section 40 of the IBP By-Laws to the
present petition, petitioners are not the proper parties to bring the suit. As provided in
the

29

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 29

Garcia vs. De Vera

aforesaid section, only nominees can file with the President of the IBP a written
protest setting forth the grounds therefor. As claimed by respondent De Vera, and not
disputed by petitioners, only IBP members from Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte
are qualified to be nominated and elected at the election for the 16th Regional Governor
of Eastern Mindanao. This is pursuant to the rotation rule enunciated in the
aforequoted Sections 37 and 38 of the IBP By-Laws. Petitioner Garcia is from Bukidnon
IBP Chapter while the other petitioners, Ravanera and Velez, are from the Misamis
Oriental IBP Chapter. Consequently, the petitioners are not even qualified to be
nominated at the forthcoming election.
Same;  Same;  It is premature to seek the disqualification of a member from being
elected IBP Governor where he has not yet been nominated for the post.—This Court is
one with the IBP Board in its position that it is premature for the petitioners to seek the
disqualification of respondent De Vera from being elected IBP Governor for the Eastern
Mindanao Region. Before a member is elected governor, he has to be nominated first for
the post. In this case, respondent De Vera has not been nominated for the post. In fact,
no nomination of candidates has been made yet by the members of the House of
Delegates from Eastern Mindanao. Conceivably too, assuming that respondent De Vera
gets nominated, he can always opt to decline the nomination.
Same;  Same;  A lawyer has discretion to choose the particular chapter where he
wishes to gain membership and to register with the particular IBP Chapter of his
preference or choice—it is not automatic that a lawyer will become a member of the
chapter where his place of residence or work is located.—Petitioners contend that
respondent De Vera is disqualified for the post because he is not really from Eastern
Mindanao. His place of residence is in Parañaque and he was originally a member of the
PPLM IBP Chapter. He only changed his IBP Chapter membership to pave the way for
his ultimate goal of attaining the highest IBP post, which is the national presidency.
Petitioners aver that in changing his IBP membership, respondent De Vera violated the
domicile rule. The contention has no merit. Under the last paragraph of Section 19
Article II, a lawyer included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court can register
with the particular IBP Chapter of his preference or choice, thus: Section 19.
Registration.—. . . .Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter,
a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city, political
subdivision or area where his office or, in the absence thereof, his residence is located.
In no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter. (Italics supplied) It
is clearly stated in the afore-quoted section of the By-Laws that it is not automatic that
a lawyer will become a member of the chapter where his place of residence or work is
located. He has the discretion to choose the particular chapter where he wishes to gain
membership. Only when he does not register his

30
 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

preference that he will become a member of the Chapter of the place where he
resides or maintains his office. The only proscription in registering one’s preference is
that a lawyer cannot be a member of more than one chapter at the same time.
Same;  Same;  Legal Ethics;  As long as an aspiring member meets the basic
requirements provided in the IBP By-Laws, he cannot be barred from seeking the position
of governor for a particular region; There is nothing in the By-Laws which explicitly
provides that one must be morally fit before he can run for IBP governorship.—
Petitioners likewise claim that respondent De Vera is disqualified because he is not
morally fit to occupy the position of governor of Eastern Mindanao. We are not
convinced. As long as an aspiring member meets the basic requirements provided in the
IBP ByLaws, he cannot be barred. The basic qualifications for one who wishes to be
elected governor for a particular region are: (1) he is a member in good standing of the
IBP; (2) he is included in the voter’s list of his chapter or he is not disqualified by the
Integration Rule, by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, or by the By-Laws of the
Chapter to which he belongs; (3) he does not belong to a chapter from which a regional
governor has already been elected, unless the election is the start of a new season or
cycle; and (4) he is not in the government service. There is nothing in the By-Laws
which explicitly provides that one must be morally fit before he can run for IBP
governorship. For one, this is so because the determination of moral fitness of a
candidates lies in the individual judgment of the members of the House of Delegates.
Indeed, based on each member’s standard of morality, he is free to nominate and elect
any member, so long as the latter possesses the basic requirements under the law. For
another, basically the disqualification of a candidate involving lack of moral fitness
should emanate from his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law by this
Court, or conviction by final judgment of an offense which involves moral turpitude.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Words and Phrases;  Moral turpitude as “an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men,
or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and man, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals”;
It cannot be said that the act of expressing one’s opinion on a public interest issue can be
considered as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity.—In  Tak Ng v. Republic of the
Philippines  cited in  Villaber v. Commission on Elections  the Court defines moral
turpitude as “an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and man, or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty or good morals.” The determination of whether an act involves moral
turpitude is a factual issue and frequently depends on the circumstances at-

31

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 31

Garcia vs. De Vera

tending the violation of the statute. In this case, it cannot be said that the act of
expressing one’s opinion on a public interest issue can be considered as an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity. Respondent De Vera did not bring suffering nor cause
undue injury or harm to the public when he voiced his views on the Plunder Law.
Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner to invoke the administrative case as
evidence of respondent De Vera’s alleged immorality.
Same; Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; It is a basic rule on evidence that he who
alleges a fact has the burden to prove the same.—On the administrative complaint that
was filed against respondent De Vera while he was still practicing law in California, he
explained that no final judgment was rendered by the California Supreme Court finding
him guilty of the charge. He surrendered his license to protest the discrimination he
suffered at the hands of the investigator and he found it impractical to pursue the case
to the end. We find these explanations satisfactory in the absence of contrary proof. It is
a basic rule on evidence that he who alleges a fact has the burden to prove the same. In
this case, the petitioners have not shown how the administrative complaint affects
respondent De Vera’s moral fitness to run for governor.
 Same;  Same;  Same;  Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof under our Rules of Court.—Finally, on the allegation that respondent
De Vera or his handlers had housed the delegates from Eastern Mindanao in the
Century Park Hotel to get their support for his candidacy, again petitioners did not
present any proof to substantiate the same. It must be emphasized that bare
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules of
Court.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Petition to Disqualify

Atty. Leonard De Vera from Being Elected Governor of Eastern Mindanao in
16th IBP Regional Governor’s Elections.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel Ravanera and Tony Velez for and in
their own behalf.
     Federico N. Alday, Jr. Lead counsel for Atty. De Vera.
          Ed Vincent S. Albano,  Angel C. Cruz,  Antonio R. Tupaz,  Manuel B.
Tomacruz,  Jesus M. Elbinias,  Leo N. Caubang,  Eulogia M. Cueva,  Diana F.
Franco,  Alberto N. Hidalgo,  Carlos Isagani T. Zarate,  Dominador F.
Carillo, Jesus T. Albacite, Randy E. Alvizo,
32

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

Israelito P. Torreon and Manuelito R. Luna co-counsel for Atty. De Vera.

TINGA, J.:
1
This is a Petition  filed by Attys. Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel Ravanera
and Tony Velez, mainly seeking the disqualification of respondent Atty.
Leonard De Vera “from being elected Governor of Eastern Mindanao” in the
16th Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) Regional Governors’ elections.
Petitioner Garcia is the Vice-President of the Bukidnon IBP Chapter, while
petitioners Ravanera and Velez are the past President and the incumbent
President, respectively, of the Misamis Oriental IBP Chapter.
The facts as culled from the pleadings of the parties follow.
The election for the 16th IBP Board of Governors (“IBP Board”) was set on
April 26, 2003, a month prior to the IBP National Convention scheduled on
May 22-24, 2003. The election was so set in compliance with Section 39, Article
VI of the IBP By-Laws, which reads:
SECTION 39. Nomination and election of the Governors.—At least one month before the
national convention, the delegates from each region shall elect the governor of their
region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in
the region.
2
Later on, the outgoing IBP Board, in its  Resolution   No. XV-2003-99  dated
April 16, 2003, reset the elections to May 31, 2003, or after the IBP National
Convention.
Respondent De Vera, a member of the Board of Directors of the Agusan del
Sur IBP Chapter in Eastern Mindanao, along with Atty.3 P. Angelica Y.
Santiago, President of the IBP Rizal Chapter, sent a letter   dated 28 March
2003, requesting the IBP Board to reconsider its Resolution of April 6, 2003.
Their Motion was anchored on two grounds viz.: (1) adhering to the mandate of
Section 39 of the IBP By-Laws to hold the election of Regional Governors at
least one month prior to the national convention of the IBP will prevent it from
being politicized since post-convention elections

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-11.
2 Id., at p. 104.
3 Id., at pp. 105-108.

33
 VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 33
Garcia vs. De Vera

may otherwise lure the candidates into engaging in unacceptable political

practices, and; (2) holding the election on May 31, 2003 will render it
impossible for the outgoing IBP Board from resolving protests in the election
for governors not later than May 31, 2003, as expressed in Section 40 of the
IBP By-Laws, to wit:
SECTION 40.  Election contests.—Any nominee desiring to contest an election shall,
within two days after the announcement of the results of the elections, file with the
President of the Integrated Bar a written protest setting forth the grounds therefor.
Upon receipt of such petition, the President shall forthwith call a special meeting of the
outgoing Board of Governors to consider and hear the protest, with due notice to the
contending parties. The decision of the Board shall be announced not later than the
following May 31, and shall be final and conclusive.

On April 26, 2003, the IBP Board4

denied the request for reconsideration in
its Resolution No. XV-2003-162.
On May 26, 2003, after the IBP national convention had been 5
adjourned in
the afternoon of May 24, 2003, the petitioners filed a  Petition   dated 23 May
2003 before the IBP Board seeking (1) the postponement of the election for
Regional Governors to the second or third week of June 2003; and (2) the
disqualification of respondent De Vera “from being elected Regional Governor
for Eastern Mindanao Region.”
The IBP Board denied the Petition in a Resolution issued on May 29, 2003.
The pertinent portions of the Resolutionread:
WHEREAS, two specific reliefs are being sought, to wit, first, the postponement of the
elections for regional governors and, second, the disqualification of Atty. Leonard de
Vera.
WHEREAS, anent the first relief sought, the Board finds no compelling justification
for the postponement of the elections especially considering that preparations and
notices had already been completed.
WHEREAS, with respect to the disqualifications of Atty. Leonard de Vera, this Board
finds the petition to be premature considering that no nomination has yet been made for
the election of IBP regional governor.
PREMISES 6
CONSIDERED, the Board hereby resolves, as it hereby resolves, to deny
the petition.

_______________
4 Id., at pp. 109-111.
5 Id., at pp. 112-121.
6 Id., at p. 122.

34

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

Probably thinking that the IBP Board had not yet acted on theirPetition, on the
same date, May 29, 2003, the petitioners filed thepresent  Petition  before this
Court, seeking the same reliefs as thosesought in their Petitionbefore the IBP.
On the following day, May 30, 2003, acting upon the petitioners’ application,
this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), directing the IBP
Board, its agents, representatives or persons acting in their place and stead to
cease and desist from proceeding7
with the election for the IBP Regional
Governor in Eastern Mindanao.
Citing the IBP By-Laws, the petitioners expound on the mechanics for the
selection of the IBP officers from the Chapter Officers up to the Regional
Governors constituting the IBP Board which is its highest policy-making body,
as well as the underlying dynamics, to wit:
IBP Chapter Officers headed by the President are elected for a term of two
years. The IBP Chapter Presidents in turn, elect their respective Regional
Governors following the rotation rule. The IBP has nine (9) regions,  viz.:
Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Greater Manila, Southern Luzon, Bicolandia,
Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, Eastern Mindanao and Western Mindanao.
The governors serve for a term of two (2) years beginning on the 1st of July of
the first year and ending on the 30th of June of the second year.
From the members of the newly constituted IBP Board, an Executive Vice
President (EVP) shall be chosen, also on rotation basis. The rationale for the
rotation rule in the election of both the Regional Governors and the Vice
President is to give everybody a chance to serve the IBP, to avoid politicking
and to democratize the selection process.
Finally, the National President is not elected. Under the ByLaws, whoever is
the incumbent EVP will automatically be the National President for the
following term.
Petitioners elucidate that at present, all the IBP regions, except Eastern
Mindanao, have had two (2) National Presidents each. Following the rotation
rule, whoever will be elected Regional Governor for Eastern Mindanao Region
in the 16th Regional Governors elections will automatically become the EVP for
the term July 1,

_______________
7 Id., at p. 1-2.

35

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 35

Garcia vs. De Vera

2003 to June 30, 2005. For the next term in turn, i.e., from July 1, 2005 to June
20, 2007, the EVP immediately before then will automatically assume the post
of IBP National President.
Petitioners asseverate that it is in this light that respondent De Vera had
transferred his IBP membership from the Pasay, Parañaque, Las Piñas and
Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter to 8Agusan del Sur Chapter, stressing that he
indeed covets the IBP presidency.  The transfer of IBP membership to Agusan
del Sur, the petitioners went on, is a brazen abuse and misuse of the rotation
rule, a mockery of the domicile rule and a great insult to lawyers from Eastern
Mindanao for it implies9 that there is no lawyer from the region qualified and
willing to serve the IBP.
Adverting to the moral fitness required of a candidate for the offices of
regional governor, executive vice-president and national president, the
petitioners submit that respondent De Vera lacks the requisite moral aptitude.
According to them, respondent De Vera was sanctioned by the Supreme Court
for irresponsibly attacking the integrity of the SC Justices during the
deliberations on the constitutionality of the plunder law. They add that he
could have been disbarred in the United States for misappropriating his client’s
funds had he not surrendered his California license to practice law. Finally,
they accuse him of having actively campaigned for the position of Eastern
Mindanao Governor during the IBP National 10Convention held on May 22-24,
2003, a prohibited act under the IBP By-Laws.
After seeking leave11 of court, respondent De Vera filed on June 9, 2003
a Respectful Comment  on the Petition.
In his defense, respondent De Vera raises new issues. He argues that this
Court has no jurisdiction over the present controversy, contending that the
election of the Officers of the IBP, including the determination of the
qualification of those who want to serve the organization, is purely an internal
matter, governed as it is by the IBP By-Laws and exclusively regulated and
administered by the IBP. Respondent De Vera also assails the petitioners’ legal
standing, pointing out that the IBP By-Laws does not have a provi-

_______________
8 Id., at p. 7.
9 Ibid.
10 Rollo, p. 9.
11 Id., at pp. 46-93.

36
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Garcia vs. De Vera

sion for the disqualification of IBP members aspiring for the position of
Regional governors, for instead all that it provides for is only an election
protest under Article IV, Section 40, pursuant to which only a qualified
nominee can validly lodge an election protest which is to be made after, not
before, the election. He posits further that following the rotation rule, only
members from the Surigao del Norte and Agusan del Sur IBP chapters are
qualified to run for Governor for Eastern Mindanao Region for the term 2003-
2005, and the petitioners who 12are from Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental are not
thus qualified to be nominees.
Meeting the petitioners’ contention head on, respondent De Vera avers that
an IBP member 13
is entitled to select, change or transfer his chapter
membership.  He cites the last paragraph of Section 19, Article II and Section
29-2, Article IV of the IBP By-Laws, thus:
Article II, Section 19. Registration.—x x x Unless he otherwise registers his preference
for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the
province, city, political subdivision or area where his office or, in the absence thereof, his
residence is located. In no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter.
Article IV, Section 29-2.  Membership.—The Chapter comprises all members
registered in its membership roll. Each member shall maintain his membership until
the same is terminated on any of the grounds set forth in the By-Laws of the Integrated
Bar, or he transfers his membership to another Chapter as certified by the Secretary of
the latter, provided that the transfer is made not less than three months immediately
preceding any Chapter election.

The right to transfer membership, respondent De Vera stresses, is also

recognized in Section 4, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court which is exactly the
same as the first of the above-quoted provisions of the IBP By-Laws, thus:

Rule-139-A, Section 4. x x x Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular

Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city,
political subdivision or area where his office, or, in the absence thereof, his residence is
located. In no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter.

_______________
12 Id., at p. 60.
13 Id., at pp. 61-62.

37

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 37

Garcia vs. De Vera

Clarifying that it was upon the invitation of the officers and members of the
Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter that he transferred his IBP membership,
respondent De Vera submits that it is unfair and unkind for the petitioners to
state that his membership transfer was done for convenience and 14
as a mere
subterfuge to qualify him for the Eastern Mindanao governorship.
On the moral integrity question, respondent De Vera denies that he
exhibited disrespect to the Court or to any of its members during its
deliberations on the constitutionality of the plunder law. As for the
administrative complaint filed against him by one of his clients when he was
practicing law in California, which in turn compelled him to surrender his
California license to practice law, he maintains that it cannot serve as basis for
determining his moral qualification (or lack of it) to run for the position he is
aspiring for. He explains that there is as yet no final judgment finding him
guilty of the administrative charge, as the records relied upon by the
petitioners are mere preliminary findings of a hearing referee which are
recommendatory in character similar to the recommendatory findings of an
IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline which are subject to the review of and the
final decision of the Supreme Court. He also stresses that the complainant in
the California administrative case has retracted the accusation that he
misappropriated the complainant’s money, but unfortunately the retraction
was not considered by the investigating officer. Finally, on the alleged
politicking he committed during the IBP National Convention held on May 22-
24, 2003, he states that it is baseless to assume that he was campaigning
simply because he declared that he had 10 votes to support his candidacy for
governorship in the Eastern Mindanao Region and that the petitioners did not
present any evidence to substantiate their claim that he or his15 handlers had
billeted the delegates from his region at the Century Park 16
Hotel.
On July 7, 2003, the petitioners filed their  Reply   to the  Respectful
Comment 17of respondent De Vera who, on July 15, 2003, filed an  Answer and
Rejoinder.

_______________
14 Id., at p. 66.
15 Id., at p. 87.
16 Id., at pp. 150-169.
17 Id., at pp. 175-196.

38

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera
18
In a Resolution  dated 5 August 2003, the Court directed the other respondent
in this case, the IBP Board, to file its comment on the Petition. The
19
IBP Board,
through its General Counsel, filed a  Manifestation   dated 29 August 2003,
reiterating the position stated in its  Resolution  dated 29 May 2003 that “it
finds the petition to be premature considering that no20 nomination has as yet
been made for the election of IBP Regional Governors.”
Based on the arguments of the parties, the following are the main issues, to
wit:

(1) whether this Court has jurisdiction over the present controversy;
(2) whether petitioners have a cause of action against respondent De Vera,
the determination of which in turn requires the resolution of two sub-
issues, namely:

(a) whether the petition to disqualify respondent De Vera is the proper

remedy under the IBP By-Laws; and
(b) whether the petitioners are the proper parties to bring this suit;

(3) whether the present Petition is premature;

(4) assuming that petitioners have a cause of action and that the present
petition is not premature, whether respondent De Vera is qualified to
run for Governor of the IBP Eastern Mindanao Region;

Anent the first issue, in his Respectful Commentrespondent De Vera contends

that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the present controversy. As
noted earlier, respondent De Vera submits that the election of the Officers of
the IBP, including the determination of the qualification of those who want to
serve the IBP, is purely an internal matter and exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the IBP.
The contention is untenable. Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
confers on the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules affecting the IBP,
thus:

_______________
18 Id., at pp. 173-174.
19 Id., at pp. 237-242.
20 Id., at p. 238.

39

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 39

 Garcia vs. De Vera

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

....
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
law, the Integrated Bar, and the legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall
be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied)

Implicit in this constitutional grant is the power to supervise all the activities
of the IBP, including the election of its officers.
The authority of the Supreme Court over the IBP has its origins in the 1935
Constitution. Section 13, Art. VIII thereof granted the Supreme Court the
power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law. It
reads:

SECTION 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law.
Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice, and
procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Courts, subject to
the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall have
the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.

The above-quoted sections in both the 1987 and 1935 Constitution 21

and the
similarly worded provision in the intervening 1973 Constitution   through all
the years have been the sources of this Court’s authority to supervise
individual members of the Bar. The term “Bar” refers to the “collectivity of all
persons whose names

_______________
21  Sec. 5(5) Art X, 1973 Constitution: Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, and the integration of the Bar, which,
however, may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

40

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera
22
appear in the Roll of Attorneys.”   Pursuant to this power of supervision, the
Court initiated the integration of the Philippine Bar by creating on October 5,
1970 the Commission on Bar Integration, which 23
was tasked to ascertain the
advisability
24
of unifying the Philippine Bar. Not long after, Republic Act No.
6397  was enacted and it confirmed the power of the Supreme Court to effect
the integration of the Philippine Bar. Finally, on January 1, 1973, in the  per
curiam Resolution of this Court captioned “In the Matter of the Integration of
the Bar to the Philippines,” we ordained the Integration of the Philippine Bar
in accordance with Rule 139-A, of the Rules of Court, which we promulgated
pursuant to our rule-making power under the 1935 Constitution.
The IBP By-Laws, the document invoked by respondent De Vera in asserting
IBP independence from the Supreme Court, ironically recognizes the full range
of 25
the power of supervision of the Supreme Court over the IBP. For one, Section
77   of the IBP ByLaws vests on the Court the power to amend, modify or
repeal the IBP By-Laws, either  motu proprio  or upon
26
recommendation of the
Board of Governors of the IBP. Also in Section 15,  the Court is authorized to
send
27
observers in IBP elections, whether local or national. Section
44   empowers the Court to have the final decision on the removal of the
members of the Board of Governors.

_______________
 22 In the matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 151 Phil. 132; 49 SCRA 22 (1973).
23 Supreme Court Resolution dated October 5, 1970.
24 An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
25  SEC. 77.  Amendments.—These By-Laws may be amended, modified or repealed by the

Supreme Court motu proprio or upon the recommendation of the Board of Governors.

26 SEC. 15. Supreme Court observer.—The Supreme Court may designate an official observer at

any election of the Integrated Bar, whether national or local.

27  SEC. 44.  Removal of Members.—If the Board of Governors should determine after proper

inquiry that any of its members, elective or otherwise, has for any reason become unable to perform
his duties, the Board, by resolution of the majority of the remaining members, may declare his
position vacant, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court.
Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be removed for cause, including three
consecutive absences from Board meetings without

41

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 41

Garcia vs. De Vera

On the basis of its power of supervision over the IBP, the Supreme Court
looked into the irregularities which attended the 1989 elections of the IBP
National Officers. In Bar Matter No. 491 entitled “In the Matter of the Inquiry
into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines”  the Court
formed a committee to make an inquiry into the 1989 elections. The results of
the investigation showed that the elections were marred by irregularities, with
the principal candidates
28
for election committing acts in violation of Section 14
of the IBP By-Laws.   The Court invalidated the elections and directed the
conduct of special elections, as well as explicitly disqualified from running
thereat the IBP members who

_______________

justifiable excuse, by resolution adopted by two-thirds of the remaining members of the Board,
subject to the approval of the Supreme Court.
In case of any vacancy in the office of Governor for whatever cause, the remaining members of
the Board shall, by majority vote, elect a successor from among the Delegates coming from the
Region concerned to serve as Governor for the unexpired portion of the term.
28 SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to election.—The following acts and practices

relative to elections are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the
Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by himself or
through another person:

(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material;

(b) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign material other than a statement of the
biodata of a candidate on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of paper; or causing
distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the
officer presiding at the elections;
(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial
or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof;
(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the
advertisement thereof;
(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or
against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2)
giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar
consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made,
offered or promised to any person.

42

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

were found involved in the irregularities in the elections, in order to “impress

upon the participants, in that electoral exercise the seriousness of the
misconduct which attended it and the stern disapproval with which it is viewed
by this Court, and to restore the non-political character of the IBP and reduce,
if not entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering.”
 The Court likewise amended several provisions of the IBP ByLaws. First, it
removed direct election by the House of Delegates of the (a) officers of the
House of Delegates; (b) IBP President; and (c) Executive Vice-President (EVP).
Second, it restored the former system of the IBP Board choosing the IBP
President and the Executive Vice President (EVP) from among themselves on a
rotation basis (Section 47 of the By-Laws, as amended) and the automatic
succession by the EVP to the position of the President upon the expiration of
their common two-year term. Third, it amended Sections 37 and 39 by
providing that the Regional Governors shall be elected by the members of their
respective House of Delegates and that the position of Regional Governor shall
be rotated among the different chapters in the region.
The foregoing considerations demonstrate the power of the Supreme Court
over the IBP and establish without doubt its jurisdiction to hear and decide the
present controversy.
In support of its stance on the second issue that the petitioners have no
cause of action against him, respondent De Vera argues that the IBP By-Laws
does not allow petitions to disqualify candidates for Regional Governors since
what it authorizes are election protests or post-election cases under Section 40
thereof which reads:
SECTION 40.  Election contests.—Any nominee desiring to contest an election shall,
within two days after the announcement of the results of the elections, file with the
President of the Integrated Bar a written protest setting forth the grounds therefor.
Upon receipt of such petition, the President shall forthwith call a special meeting of the
outgoing Board of Governors to consider and hear the protest, with due notice to the
contending parties. The decision of the Board shall be announced not later than the
following May 31, and shall be final and conclusive.

Indeed, there is nothing in the present IBP By-Laws which sanctions the
disqualification of candidates for IBP governors. The remedy it provides for
questioning the elections is the election
43

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 43

Garcia vs. De Vera

protest. But this remedy, as will be shown later, is not available to just
anybody.
Before its amendment in 1989, the IBP By-Laws allowed the disqualification
of nominees for the position of regional governor. This was carefully detailed in
the former Section 39(4) of the IBP By-Laws, to wit:
SECTION 39 (4). Disqualification proceedings.—Any question relating to the eligibility
of a candidate must be raised prior to the casting of ballots, and shall be immediately
decided by the Chairman. An appeal from such decision may be taken to the Delegates
in attendance who shall forthwith resolve the appeal by plurality vote. Voting shall be
by raising of hands. The decision of the Delegates shall be final, and the elections shall
thereafter proceed. Recourse to the Board of Governors may be had in accordance with
Section 40.

The above-quoted sub-section was part of the provisions on nomination and

election of the Board of Governors. Before, members of the Board were directly
elected by the members
29
of the House of Delegates at its annual convention held
every other year.  The election was a two-tiered process. First, the Delegates
from each region chose by secret plurality vote, not less than two nor more than
five nominees for the position of Governor for their Region. The names of all the
nominees, arranged by region and in alphabetical order, were written on the
board within the full view of the House, unless 30complete mimeographed copies
of the lists were distributed to all the Delegates. Thereafter, each Delegate,

_______________
29 Section 33(g). The House (of Delegates) shall elect the members of the Board of Governors at

the annual convention every other year.

30 SEC. 39. Nomination and election of Governors.—

(a) Nominations.—
On the morning of the first day of the convention of the House of Delegates held for the election
of Governors, the Delegates from each Region shall choose, by secret plurality vote, not less than
two or more than five nominees for the position of Governor for their Region. In no case shall more
than one nominee come from the same Chapter, nor may any person be nominated unless he is a
duly registered member of a Chapter within the Region.
The list of nominees shall be submitted on the same morning to the Chairman of the House, who
shall forthwith read them aloud. The names of all the nominees, arranged by Region and in
alphabetical order of sur

44

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

or, in his absence,

31
his alternate voted for only one nominee for Governor for
each Region.  The nominee from ev ery Region receiving the
32
highest number of
votes was declared and certified elected by the Chairman.
In the aftermath of the controversy which arose during the 1989 IBP
elections, this Court deemed it best to amend the nomination and election
processes for Regional Governors. The Court localized the elections,  i.e., each
Regional Governor is nominated and elected by the delegates of the concerned
region, and adopted the rotation process through the following provisions, to
wit:
SECTION 37. Composition of the Board.—The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be
governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9)
regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of
one Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates
from that region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different
chapters in the region.
SECTION 39.  Nomination and election of the Governors.—At least one (1) month
before the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor
for their region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the
chapters in the region.

The changes adopted by the Court simplified the election process and thus
made it less controversial. The grounds for disqualification were reduced, if not
totally eradicated, for the pool from which

_______________

names, shall be written on a blackboard or blackboards within the full view of the House, unless
complete mimeographed copies of the lists are distributed to all the Delegates by the secretariat of
the House.
In no case shall any nomination or campaign speech be permitted.
31 Section 39(5) Voting.—Voting for Governors shall take place on the afternoon of the first day

of the convention, and shall be by secret ballot. Official ballots shall be provided for the purpose. No
voting by proxy shall be allowed. Each Delegate, or, in his absence, his alternate shall vote for only
one nominee for Governor of each Region.
32 Section 39 (7) Persons to be declared elected.—Elections shall be determined by plurality vote.

The nominee from every Region receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared and
certified elected by the Chairman. In case of a tie vote, the winner shall be determined by lots
drawn by the nominees concerned. The Secretary shall keep all the ballots and tally sheets in a
locked receptacle where they shall remain, subject to the further orders of the Board of Governors.

45

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 45

Garcia vs. De Vera

the Delegates may choose their nominees is diminished as the rotation process
operates.
The simplification of the process was
33
in line with this Court’s vision of an
Integrated Bar which is non-political and effective in the discharge of its role
in elevating the standards of the legal profession, improving the administration
of justice
34
and contributing to the growth and progress of the Philippine
society.
The effect of the new election process convinced this Court to remove the
provision on disqualification proceedings. Consequently, under the present IBP
By-Laws, the instant petition has no firm ground to stand on.
 Respondent De Vera likewise asseverates that under the aforequoted
Section 40 of the IBP By-Laws, petitioners are not the proper persons to bring
the suit for they are not qualified to be nominated in the elections of regional
governor for Eastern Mindanao. He argues that following the rotation rule
under Section 39 of the IBP By-Laws as amended, only IBP members from
Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte are qualified to be nominated.
Truly, with the applicability of Section 40 of the IBP By-Laws to the present
petition, petitioners are not the proper parties to bring the suit. As provided in
the aforesaid section, only nominees can

_______________
33  Section 4, Article 1,  IBP By-Laws. Non-political Bar.—The Integrated Bar is strictly non-

political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be
penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office
in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for
election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate,
Governor, officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter
thereof shall be considered  ipso facto  resigned from his position as of the moment he files his
certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-
judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality
thereof.
34 Section 2, Article 1,  IBP By-Laws. Objectives and purposes.—The following are the general

objectives of the Integrated Bar; to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
The purposes of the Integrated Bar include, without being limited to, those specified in the  per
curiam Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 9, 1973 ordaining the integration of the
Philippine Bar.

46

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

file with the President of the IBP a written protest setting forth the grounds
therefor. As claimed by respondent De Vera, and not disputed by petitioners,
only IBP members from Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte are qualified to
be nominated and elected at the election for the 16th Regional Governor of
Eastern Mindanao. This is pursuant to the rotation rule enunciated in the
aforequoted Sections 37 and 38 of the IBP By-Laws. Petitioner Garcia is from
Bukidnon IBP Chapter while the other petitioners, Ravanera and Velez, are
from the Misamis Oriental IBP Chapter. Consequently, the petitioners are not
even qualified to be nominated at the forthcoming election.
On the third issue relating to the ripeness or prematurity of the present
petition.
This Court is one with the IBP Board in its position that it is premature for
the petitioners to seek the disqualification of respondent De Vera from being
elected IBP Governor for the Eastern Mindanao Region. Before a member is
elected governor, he has to be nominated first for the post. In this case,
respondent De Vera has not been nominated for the post. In fact, no
nomination of candidates has been made yet by the members of the House of
Delegates from Eastern Mindanao. Conceivably too, assuming that respondent
De Vera gets nominated, he can always opt to decline the nomination.
Petitioners contend that respondent De Vera is disqualified for the post
because he is not really from Eastern Mindanao. His place of residence is in
Parañaque and he was originally a member of the PPLM IBP Chapter. He only
changed his IBP Chapter membership to pave the way for his ultimate goal of
attaining the highest IBP post, which is the national presidency. Petitioners
aver that in changing his IBP membership, respondent De Vera violated the
domicile rule.
The contention has no merit. Under the last paragraph of Section 19 Article
II, a lawyer included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court can register
with the particular IBP Chapter of his preference or choice, thus:
Section 19. Registration.—
....
Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be
considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city,
 47

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 47

Garcia vs. De Vera

political subdivision or area where his office or, in the absence thereof, his residence is
located. In no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter. (Italics
supplied)

It is clearly stated in the afore-quoted section of the By-Laws that it is not

automatic that a lawyer will become a member of the chapter where his place
of residence or work is located. He has the discretion to choose the particular
chapter where he wishes to gain membership. Only when he does not register
his preference that he will become a member of the Chapter of the place where
he resides or maintains his office. The only proscription in registering one’s
preference is that a lawyer cannot be a member of more than one chapter at the
same time.
The same is provided in Section 29-2 of the IBP By-Laws. In fact, under this
Section, transfer of IBP membership is allowed as long as the lawyer complies
with the conditions set forth therein, thus:
SECTION 29-2.  Membership.—The Chapter comprises all members registered in its
membership roll. Each member shall maintain his membership until the same is
terminated on any of the grounds set forth in the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, or he
transfers his membership to another Chapter as certified by the Secretary of the latter,
provided that the transfer is made not less than three months immediately preceding
any Chapter election.

The only condition required under the foregoing rule is that the transfer must
be made not less than three months prior to the election of officers in the
chapter to which the lawyer wishes to transfer.
In the case at bar, respondent De Vera requested the transfer of his IBP
membership to Agusan del Sur on 1 August 2001.35 One month thereafter, IBP
National Secretary Jaime M. Vibar wrote a letter  addressed to Atty. Amador
Z. Tolentino, Jr., Secretary of IBP PPLM Chapter and Atty. Lyndon J. Romero,
Secretary of IBP Agusan del Sur Chapter, informing them of respondent De
Vera’s transfer and advising them to make the necessary notation in their
respective records. This letter is a substantial compliance with the certification
mentioned in Section 29-2 as aforequoted. Note that De Vera’s transfer was
made effective sometime between August 1,

_______________
35 Rollo, p. 125.

48

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

2001 and September 3, 2001. On February 27, 2003, the elections of the IBP
Chapter Officers were simultaneously held all over the Philippines, as
mandated by Section 29-12.a of the IBP By-Laws which provides that elections
of Chapter Officers and Directors
36
shall be held on the last Saturday of
February of every other year.   Between September 3, 2001 and February 27,
2003, seventeen months had elapsed. This makes respondent De Vera’s
transfer valid as it was done more than three months ahead of the chapter
elections held on February 27, 2003.
Petitioners likewise claim that respondent De Vera is disqualified because
he is not morally fit to occupy the position of governor of Eastern Mindanao.
We are not convinced. As long as an aspiring member meets the basic
requirements provided in the IBP By-Laws, he cannot be barred. The basic
qualifications for one who wishes to be elected governor37
for a particular region
are: (1) he is a member in good standing of the IBP;  (2) he is included in the
voter’s list of his chapter or he is not disqualified by the Integration Rule, by
the ByLaws of the Integrated Bar, or by the By-Laws of the Chapter to
_______________
36 Section 29-12. Rules governing elections.—The following rules shall govern elections:
(a)  Date and place of elections.—Elections of Officers and Directors shall be held on the last
Saturday of February of every other year at such time and place as the Board shall designate,
which shall be stated in the notice to be sent to every member by personal delivery or by mail not
less than thirty days prior to the elections.
37 Section 9. Officer defined.—The term “officer” as used in these By-Laws shall include, but not

necessarily be limited to, the following: President, Executive Vice President, Governors, Secretary,
Treasurer and other national officers of the Integrated Bar, officers and members of the House of
Delegates, Chapter officers and directors, commissioners, and members of all national and local
committees.
Only members in good standing may become officers, and, unless otherwise provided in these By-
Laws, no person who is not a member of the Integrated Bar may become an officer.
Section 20. Members in good standing.—Every member who has paid all membership dues and
all authorized special assessments, plus surcharges owing thereon, and who is not under
suspension from the practice of law or from membership privileges, is a member in good standing.

49

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 49

Garcia vs. De Vera
38
which he belongs;   (3) he does not belong to a chapter from which a regional
governor has already
39
been elected, unless the election is 40
the start of a new
season or cycle;  and (4) he is not in the government service.
There is nothing in the By-Laws which explicitly provides that one must be
morally fit before he can run for IBP governorship. For one, this is so because
the determination of moral fitness of a candidates lies in the individual
judgment of the members of the House of Delegates. Indeed, based on each
member’s standard of morality, he is free to nominate and elect any member, so
long as the latter possesses the basic requirements under the law. For another,
basically the disqualification of a candidate involving lack of moral fitness
should emanate from his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law by
this Court, or conviction by final judgment of an offense which involves moral
turpitude.
Petitioners, in assailing the morality of respondent De Vera on the basis of
the alleged sanction imposed by the Supreme Court during the deliberation on
the constitutionality of the plunder law, is apparently referring to this
Court’s  Decision  dated 29 July 2002 in  In Re: Published Alleged Threats
Against Members
41
of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard
De Vera. In this case, respondent De Vera was found guilty of indirect
contempt of court and was imposed a fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand

_______________
38 Section 29-12.f. Eligibility.—No member may be elected to any office whose name is not duly
included in the voters’ list, or who is disqualified by the Integration Rule, by the By-Laws of the
Integrated Bar, or by these by-laws.
Section 29-12© Voters’ list.—Not earlier than twenty-five days nor later than fifteen days prior
to the elections, the Secretary shall submit to the Board of Officers a list of the names of all the
members entitled to vote. The voters’ list shall then remain closed and shall not be altered except
upon direction of the Board. However, it shall be open to inspection by all members, and upon
request, copies thereof shall be furnished to any member upon payment of actual cost.
Any member who is delinquent in the payment of dues or any assessment, including surcharges
owing, twenty-five days prior to the day of the elections, shall be excluded from the voters’ list.
39 Sections 37 and 39, Article VI, IBP By-Laws.
40 Section 4, Article 1, IBP By-Laws.
41 A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, 29 July 2002, 385 SCRA 285.

50

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

Pesos (P20,000.00) for his remarks contained in two newspaper articles

published in the Inquirer. Quoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of the
report, with De Vera’s statements written in italics.
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER 
Tuesday, November 6, 2001

Erap camp blamed for oust-Badoy maneuvers

Plunder Law

De Vera asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a
petition filed by Estrada’s lawyers to declare the plunder law unconstitutional for its
supposed vagueness.
De Vera said he and his group were “greatly disturbed” by the rumors from Supreme
Court insiders.
Reports said that Supreme Court justices were tied 6-6 over the constitutionality of
the Plunder Law, with two other justices still undecided and uttered most likely to
inhibit, said Plunder Watch, a coalition formed by civil society and militant groups to
monitor the prosecution of Estrada.
“We are afraid that the Estrada camp’s effort to coerce, bribe, or influence the justices
—considering that it has a P500 million slush fund from the aborted power grab that
May-will most likely result in a pro-Estrada
42
decision declaring the Plunder Law either
unconstitutional or vague,” the group said.

PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER 

Monday, November 19, 2001

SC under pressure from Erap pals, foes

xxx
“People are getting dangerously, passionate...emotionally charged.” said lawyer
Leonard De Vera of the Equal Justice for All Movement and a leading member of the
Estrada Resign movement.
He voiced his concern that a decision by the high tribunal rendering the plunder law
unconstitutional would trigger mass actions, probably more massive than those that led
to People Power II.
xxx

_______________
42 In Re: Published Alleged Threats Against Members of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty.
Leonard De Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, 29 July 2002, 385 SCRA 285, 287-288.

51

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 51

Garcia vs. De Vera

De Vera warned of a crisis far worse than the “jueteng” scandal that led to People
Power II if the rumor turned out to be true.
“People wouldn’t just swallow
43
any Supreme Court decision that is basically wrong.
Sovereignty must prevail.”

In his  Explanation  submitted to the Court, respondent De Vera admitted to

have made said statements but denied to have uttered the same “to degrade 44
the Court, to destroy public confidence in it and to bring it into disrepute.”  He
explained that he was merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right
to freedom of speech.
The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and held that the
statements were aimed at influencing and threatening
45
the Court to decide in
favor of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law.
The ruling cannot serve as a basis to consider respondent De Vera immoral.
The act for which he was found guilty of indirect contempt does not involve
moral turpitude. 46
In Tak47Ng v. Republic of the Philippines  cited in Villaber v. Commission on
Elections  the Court defines moral turpitude as “an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men, or
to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and
duty between48man and man, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals.”  The determination of whether an act involves moral turpitude is
a factual issue and frequently
49
depends on the circumstances attending the
violation of the statute.
In this case, it cannot be said that the act of expressing one’s opinion on a
public interest issue can be considered as an act of
_______________
43 Id., at p. 288.
44 Ibid.
45 Supra, note 41, at p. 290.
46 106 Phil. 727 (1959).
47 G.R. No. 148326, 15 November 2001, 369 SCRA 126.
48 Tak Ng v. Republic of the Philippines, 106 Phil. 727 (1959).
49  Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections,  327 Phil. 1144, 1151;  258 SCRA 483  (1996)

citing  International Rice Research Institute v. National Labor Relations Commission,  G.R. No.
97239, 12 May 1993, 221 SCRA 760, and In Re: Victono Lanuevo, Administrative Case No. 1162, 29
August 1975, 66 SCRA 245.

52

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. De Vera

baseness, vileness or depravity. Respondent De Vera did not bring suffering nor
cause undue injury
50
or harm to the public when he voiced his views on the
Plunder Law. Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner to invoke the
administrative case as evidence of respondent De Vera’s alleged immorality.
On the administrative complaint that was filed against respondent De Vera
while he was still practicing law in California, he explained that no final
judgment was rendered by the California Supreme Court finding him guilty of
the charge. He surrendered his license to protest the discrimination he suffered
at the hands of the investigator and he found it impractical to pursue the case
to the end. We find these explanations satisfactory in the absence of contrary
proof. It is a basic51rule on evidence that he who alleges a fact has the burden to
prove the same.   In this case, the petitioners have not shown how the
administrative complaint affects respondent De Vera’s moral fitness to run for
governor.
Finally, on the allegation that respondent De Vera or his handlers had
housed the delegates from Eastern Mindanao in the Century Park Hotel to get
their support for his candidacy, again petitioners did not present any proof to
substantiate the same. It must be emphasized that bare allegations,
unsubstantiated
52
by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules of
Court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition to disqualify respondent Atty. Leonard De Vera
to run for the position of IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao in the 16th
election of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby DISMISSED. The Temporary
Restraining Order  issued by this Court on 30 May 2003 which enjoined the
conduct of the election for the IBP Regional Governor in Eastern Mindanao is
hereby LIFTED. Accordingly, the IBP Board of Governors is hereby ordered to
hold said election with proper notice and with deliberate speed.

_______________
50  See  Villaber v. Commission on Elections,  G.R. No. 148326, 15 November 2001,  369 SCRA
126; Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections,327 Phil. 1144, 1151; 258 SCRA 483 (1996) and Tak Ng
v. Republic of the Philippines, 106 Phil. 727 (1959).
51 Cortes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121772, 13 January 2003, 395 SCRA 33.
52 Coronel v. Constantino, G.R. No. 121069, 7 February 2003, 397 SCRA 128.

53

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 11, 2003 53

Garcia vs. De Vera

SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr.  (C.J.),  Puno,  Vitug,  Panganiban,  Quisumbing,  Sandoval-

Gutierrez,  Carpio,  Austria-Martinez,  Corona,  Carpio-Morales,  Callejo,
Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

     Ynares-Santiago, J., No part.

Petition dismissed, temporary restraining order lifted.
 Note.—An “Integrated Bar” is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer
must belong, as distinguished from bar associations organized by individual
lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar
is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded an
opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well as
obliged to hear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or under the
direction of the State, an Integrated Bar is an official national body of which all
lawyers are required to be members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules
prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including the requirement of payment
of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar,
and adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional responsibility
breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and,
upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of
the offending member. (In re Marcial A. Edillon, 84 SCRA 554[1978])

——o0o——
54

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines as an 
Autonomous Self-Governing Body

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.