AC 6697; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 6697; Bar Matter No. 1227; A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC; July 25, 2006
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA, respondent.
FACTS
These consolidated cases concern Atty. Leonard de Vera, then the Executive Vice President (EVP) and Governor of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In A.C. No. 6697, complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez sought Atty. de Vera’s disbarment, alleging he concealed a suspension order from the State Bar of California for misappropriating client funds and violated the IBP’s “rotation rule” by transferring chapters to become National President. Meanwhile, Bar Matter No. 1227 involved de Vera’s request to schedule his oath-taking as IBP National President, a position he was set to assume by automatic succession as EVP. Concurrently, in A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, the IBP Board of Governors sought Supreme Court approval for its resolution removing de Vera as Governor and EVP. This removal stemmed from de Vera’s opposition to the Board’s decision to withdraw a petition challenging a law on judicial salaries and his subsequent public criticisms of the Board’s action.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether Atty. de Vera should be disbarred; (2) whether his removal as IBP Governor and EVP by the IBP Board was valid; and (3) consequently, whether he could rightfully assume the IBP National Presidency.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment case and nullified de Vera’s removal, allowing him to assume the IBP Presidency. On the disbarment complaint, the Court applied the principle of res judicata, finding the issues of moral fitness and chapter transfer had been conclusively ruled upon in a prior disqualification case (Adm. Case No. 6052). The Court held that the final judgment in that case barred re-litigation of the same facts and claims.
Regarding the removal, the Court ruled it was invalid for lack of due process and substantive cause. The IBP Board failed to comply with Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws, which requires removal “for cause” and approval by the Supreme Court. De Vera’s act of voting against the Board’s resolution and expressing his dissenting opinion, both in the meeting and later in a public forum, constituted a legitimate exercise of his duty and right as a Governor. Such actions, done without malice or bad faith, cannot be considered “acts inimical to the IBP” warranting removal. The Court emphasized that the removal power must be exercised with caution and not to stifle dissent or punish members for performing their fiduciary duties. Since the removal was invalid, de Vera remained the lawful EVP and was therefore entitled to succeed to the Presidency under the IBP By-Laws’ rule of automatic succession.