EN BANC
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,
A.C.
No.
6052
December 11, 2003
-versus-
ATTY. LEONARD DE
VERAAND
IBP
BOARD OF
GOVERNORS,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA,
J.:
This is a Petition[1]
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.chanrobles virtual law library
The facts as culled
from the pleadings of the parties follow.cralaw:red
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.
Later on, the outgoing
IBP Board, in its Resolution[2]
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. P. Angelica Y. Santiago, President
of
the IBP Rizal Chapter, sent a letter[3]
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 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.chanrobles virtual law library
On April 26, 2003, the
IBP Board denied the request for reconsideration in its Resolution No.
XV-2003-162.[4]
On May 26, 2003, after
the IBP national convention had been adjourned in the afternoon of May
24, 2003, the petitioners filed a Petition[5]
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 Resolution read:
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.chanrobles virtual law library
PREMISES
CONSIDERED,
the Board hereby resolves, as it hereby resolves, to deny the petition.[6]
Probably thinking that
the IBP Board had not yet acted on their Petition, on the same date,
May
29, 2003, the petitioners filed the present Petition before this Court,
seeking the same reliefs as those sought in their Petition before 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 proceeding with the election for the IBP Regional Governor
in Eastern Mindanao.[7]
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.cralaw:red
Finally, the National
President is not elected. Under the By-Laws, whoever is the incumbent
EVP
will automatically be the National President for the following term.cralaw:red
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, 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.cralaw:red
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 Agusan del Sur Chapter, stressing that he indeed
covets
the IBP presidency.[8]
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
implies that there is no lawyer from the region qualified and willing
to
serve the IBP.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
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 Convention held on May 22–24, 2003, a prohibited act
under
the IBP By-Laws.[10]
After seeking leave
of court, respondent De Vera filed on June 9, 2003 a Respectful Comment[11]
on the Petition.cralaw:red
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 provision 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 are from Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental are not thus
qualified
to be nominees.[12]
Meeting the petitioners'
contention head on, respondent De Vera avers that an IBP member is
entitled
to select, change or transfer his chapter membership.[13]
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.- 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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.
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 as a mere subterfuge to qualify
him
for the Eastern Mindanao governorship.[14]chanrobles virtual law library
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 his handlers had billeted the delegates from his
region at the Century Park Hotel.[15]
On July 7, 2003, the
petitioners filed their Reply[16]
to the Respectful Comment of respondent De Vera who, on July 15, 2003,
filed an Answer and Rejoinder.[17]
In a Resolution[18]
dated 5 August 2003, the Court directed the other respondent in this
case,
the IBP Board, to file its comment on the Petition. The IBP Board,
through
its General Counsel, filed a Manifestation[19]
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 no nomination has as yet been made for the election of IBP
Regional
Governors."[20]chanrobles virtual law library
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 Comment respondent 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.chanrobles virtual law library
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:
Section 5.
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
(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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual law library
The above-quoted
sections
in both the 1987 and 1935 Constitution and the similarly worded
provision
in the intervening 1973 Constitution[21]
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."[22]
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.[23]
Not long after, Republic Act No. 6397[24]
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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 the power of
supervision of the Supreme Court over the IBP. For one, Section 77[25]
of the IBP By Laws
vests on the Court the power to amend, modify or repeal the IBP
By-Laws,
either motu propio or upon recommendation of the Board of Governors of
the IBP. Also in Section 15,[26]
the Court is authorized to send observers in IBP elections, whether
local
or national. Section 44[27]
empowers the Court to have the final decision on the removal of the
members
of the Board of Governors.cralaw:red
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 for election committing acts in violation of Section 14 of
the
IBP By Laws.[28]
The Court invalidated the elections and directed the conduct of special
elections, as well as explicitly disqualified from running thereat the
IBP members who 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
By Laws. 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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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
protest.
But this remedy, as will be shown later, is not available to just
anybody.chanrobles virtual law library
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 of
the
House of Delegates at its annual convention held every other year.[29]
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 complete mimeographed copies
of the lists were distributed to all the Delegates.[30]
Thereafter, each Delegate, or, in his absence, his alternate voted for
only one nominee for Governor for each Region.[31]
The nominee from every Region receiving the highest number of votes was
declared and certified elected by the Chairman.[32]
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:chanrobles virtual law library
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 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[33]
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.[34]
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.cralaw:red
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 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.cralaw:red
On the third issue relating
to the ripeness or prematurity of the present petition.cralaw:red
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.cralaw:red
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. -
x
x
x
x x
x
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.
(Emphasis
supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
It is clearly stated in
the aforequoted 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. One month thereafter, IBP National Secretary
Jaime M. Vibar wrote a letter[35]
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, 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
shall be held on the last Saturday of February of every other year.[36]
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.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioners likewise
claim that respondent De Vera is disqualified because he is not morally
fit to occupy the position of governor of Eastern Mindanao.cralaw:red
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 governor for a particular region are: (1) he
is
a member in good standing of the IBP;[37]
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;[38]
(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;[39]
and (4) he is not in the government service.[40]
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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 of the
Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera.[41]
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 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.chanrobles virtual law library
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 decision
declaring
the Plunder Law either unconstitutional or vague," the group said.[42]
PHILIPPINE DAILY
INQUIRERchanrobles virtual law library
Monday, November
19,
2001
SC under pressure
from
Erap pals, foeschanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"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
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
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 any Supreme Court decision that is basically wrong. Sovereignty
must prevail.[43]
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 the Court, to destroy
public
confidence in it and to bring it into disrepute."[44]
He explained that he was merely exercising his constitutionally
guaranteed
right to freedom of speech.chanrobles virtual law library
The Court found the
explanation unsatisfactory and held that the statements were aimed at
influencing
and threatening the Court to decide in favor of the constitutionality
of
the Plunder Law.[45]
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.cralaw:red
In Tak Ng v. Republic
of the Philippines[46]
cited in Villaber v. Commission on Elections,[47]
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."[48]
The determination of whether an act involves moral turpitude is a
factual
issue and frequently depends on the circumstances attending the
violation
of the statute.[49]chanrobles virtual law library
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.[50]
Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner to invoke the
administrative
case as evidence of respondent De Vera's alleged immorality.cralaw:red
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.[51]
In this case, the petitioners have not shown how the administrative
complaint
affects respondent De Vera's moral fitness to run for governor.chanrobles virtual law library
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.[52]
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.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
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., took no part.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3–11.
[2]
Id. at 104.
[3]
Id. at 105–108.
[4]
Id. at 109–111.
[5]
Id. at 112–121.
[6]
Id. at 122.
[7]
Id. at 1–2.
[8]
Id. at 7.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Rollo, p. 9.
[11]
Id. at 46–93.
[12]
Id. at 60.
[13]
Id. at 61–62.
[14]
Id. at 66.
[15]
Id. at 87.
[16]
Id. at 150–169.
[17]
Id. at 175–196.
[18]
Id. at 173–174.
[19]
Id. at 237–242.
[20]
Id. at 238.
[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.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
In the matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 151
Phil.
132 (1973).
[23]
Supreme Court Resolution dated October 5, 1970.chanrobles virtual law library
[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 propio 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.chanrobles virtual law library
[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.chanrobles virtual law library
Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be removed for
cause,
including three consecutive absences from Board meetings without
justifiable
excuse, by resolution adopted by two-thirds of the remaining members of
the Board, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court.chanrobles virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual law library
[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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material;chanrobles virtual law library
(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.
[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.-chanrobles virtual law library
(a) Nominations.-chanrobles virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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 surnames,
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual law library
[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.chanrobles virtual law library
[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.
[35]
Rollo, p. 125.chanrobles virtual law library
[36]
Section 29-12. Rules governing elections. — The following rules shall
govern
elections:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(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.chanrobles virtual law library
[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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
Section 4, Article 1, IBP By-Laws.
[41]
A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, 29 July 2002, 385 SCRA 285.
[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.
[43]
Id. at 288.chanrobles virtual law library
[44]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[45]
Supra, note 41, at 290.
[46]
106 Phil. 727 (1959).chanrobles virtual law library
[47]
GR No. 148326, 15 November 2001, 369 SCRA 126.chanrobles virtual law library
[48]
Tak Ng v. Republic of the Philippines, 106 Phil. 727 (1959).chanrobles virtual law library
[49]
Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 1144, 1151 (1996)
citing
International Rice Research Institute v. NLRC, GR No. 97239, 12 May
1993,
221 SCRA 760, and In Re: Victorio Lanuevo, Administrative Case No.
1162,
29 August 1975, 66 SCRA 245.chanrobles virtual law library
[50]
See Villaber v. Commission on Elections, GR No. 148326, 15 November
2001,
369 SCRA 126, Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 1144,
1151
(1996) and Tak Ng v. Republic of the Philippines, 106 Phil. 727 (1959).chanrobles virtual law library
[51]
Cortes v. CA, G.R. No. 121772, 13 January 2003.
[52]
Coronel v. Constantino, G.R. No. 121069, 7 February 2003. |