G.R. No. 3066, October 26, 1999
J.K. MERCADO AND SONS AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, INC., and SPOUSES JESUS and ROSARIO K. MERCADO, complainants, vs. EDUARDO DE VERA and JOSE RONGKALES BANDALAN, respondents.

FACTS

The disbarment case arose from Civil Case No. 17215, an action for dissolution/liquidation of conjugal partnership, accounting, support, annulment of contract, reconveyance, partition, and damages filed by Rosario P. Mercado against Jesus K. Mercado, J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc., and Standard Fruits Corporation. The case was assigned to then Judge Jose Rongkales Bandalan, with Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera representing Rosario Mercado. On December 15, 1986, Judge Bandalan decided in favor of Rosario Mercado, awarding her over P9 million. After the defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration, Judge Bandalan granted Atty. De Vera’s motion for execution pending appeal on January 5, 1987. On the same date, the judge also granted Atty. De Vera’s motion to note his attorney’s lien and to direct its annotation on certificates of title. A writ of execution was issued on January 12, 1987, and garnishment notices were served on January 14, 1987, resulting in the garnishment of P1,270,734.56. On February 26, 1987, Rosario Mercado terminated Atty. De Vera’s services, offered him P350,000 as attorney’s fees, and demanded an accounting and turn-over of the money in his possession. Atty. De Vera refused, claiming entitlement to P2,254,217.00 as attorney’s fees. Consequently, Rosario Mercado filed disbarment proceedings against Atty. De Vera. The case was referred to the IBP and assigned to Commissioner Ernesto L. Pineda, then re-assigned to Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose after Atty. De Vera’s petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 96333) was dismissed. Commissioner Jose dismissed the case against Judge Bandalan for lack of jurisdiction and recommended dismissal of the disbarment case without prejudice to the parties ventilating the attorney’s fees issue in the proper forum. The IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. X-93-41 on March 23, 1993, recommending Atty. De Vera’s suspension from law practice for one year. This prompted Atty. De Vera to file Administrative Case No. 4438 seeking the disbarment of several IBP officers and Carmen Leonor P. Mercado-Alcantara, alleging irregularities in the adoption of the resolution and conspiracy.

ISSUE

1. Whether Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera should be disciplined for his conduct regarding the attorney’s fees and the garnished funds.
2. Whether the IBP officers and Atty. Carmen Leonor P. Mercado-Alcantara should be disbarred for alleged misconduct and irregularities in the adoption of IBP Resolution No. X-93-41.

RULING

1. In A.C. No. 3066: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION Resolution No. X-93-41 of the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and DIRECTED to return to Rosario K. Mercado the amount in his possession in excess of P350,000.00, without prejudice to any judicial action he may take to recover his unsatisfied attorney’s fees. His suspension stands until he satisfactorily shows compliance.
2. In A.C. No. 4438: The case was DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court found that inconsistencies in the minutes of the IBP Board meeting did not establish a concerted effort to manipulate the case. The charge against Atty. Alcantara was unsubstantiated, and her motions for early resolution only confirmed the delay in the release of the resolution and her lack of knowledge of the final resolution.