TL;DR

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera from running for Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governor for Eastern Mindanao. The Court affirmed its supervisory power over the IBP, but emphasized that disqualification petitions are not allowed under the current IBP By-Laws before a nomination occurs. The decision underscored an IBP member’s right to transfer chapter membership, provided it is done at least three months before elections. The Court also held that allegations of moral unfitness must be based on concrete evidence like disbarment or conviction for moral turpitude, and that expressing opinions on matters of public interest does not constitute immorality.

Can a Lawyer Switch Chapters to Run for Office? Supreme Court Says Yes, With Caveats

This case revolves around a contentious attempt to disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera from running for IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao. The petitioners, Attys. Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel Ravanera, and Tony Velez, argued that De Vera’s transfer of IBP membership was a strategic maneuver to secure the governorship and, eventually, the IBP presidency. They further contended that he lacked the moral fitness for the position due to past disciplinary actions and alleged unethical conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies crucial aspects of IBP governance, membership rights, and the grounds for disqualification in IBP elections.

The Court first addressed the issue of jurisdiction, firmly establishing its authority over the IBP. Citing Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Court reiterated its power to promulgate rules affecting the IBP, including the election of its officers. This supervisory role, rooted in the Court’s power over the legal profession, allows it to intervene in IBP matters to ensure fairness and adherence to established rules. This constitutional mandate is further underscored by the IBP By-Laws themselves, which acknowledge the Court’s power to amend or repeal the By-Laws and oversee IBP elections.

However, the Court sided with De Vera, stating that the current IBP By-Laws do not provide for pre-nomination disqualification proceedings. The remedy available under Section 40 of the By-Laws is an election protest, which can only be filed by a qualified nominee after the election results are announced. Since De Vera had not yet been nominated, the petition was deemed premature. Further, the petitioners themselves were not qualified to file a protest, as they were not eligible for nomination under the IBP’s rotation rule, which prioritizes members from specific chapters within Eastern Mindanao for the governorship.

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that De Vera’s transfer of IBP membership was improper. The Court emphasized that IBP members have the right to register their preference for a particular chapter, regardless of their residence or office location. This right is explicitly recognized in Section 19, Article II of the IBP By-Laws, which states that a lawyer is considered a member of the chapter where their office or residence is located, “unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter.” Additionally, the Court noted that De Vera’s transfer complied with Section 29-2 of the IBP By-Laws, as it was made more than three months before the chapter elections.

Regarding the allegations of moral unfitness, the Court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The Court clarified that moral unfitness typically arises from disbarment, suspension from practice, or conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude. While De Vera had been found guilty of indirect contempt of court for remarks made about the Supreme Court, the Court found that this did not involve moral turpitude. Further, the Court deemed De Vera’s explanation regarding the administrative complaint in California satisfactory, given the lack of a final judgment and the complainant’s retraction of the accusation. Allegations of campaigning during the IBP National Convention were also dismissed for lack of evidence.

In essence, the Court upheld the principles of due process and fairness in IBP elections. While acknowledging its supervisory role over the IBP, the Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established rules and procedures outlined in the IBP By-Laws. The decision protects the right of IBP members to choose their chapter affiliations and clarifies the limited grounds for disqualification in IBP elections.

FAQs

This ruling clarifies the rights of IBP members and the process for challenging election eligibility. It reinforces the importance of following established procedures and providing concrete evidence when raising concerns about a candidate’s qualifications.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA, A.C. No. 6052, December 11, 2003