FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera was the former counsel of Rosario P. Mercado in a civil case filed in 1984 with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. There was also an administrative case filed before the Securities and Exchange Commission, Davao City Extension Office. Rosario obtained a favorable decision and a writ of execution pending appeal was issued in her favor. However, the respondent, as her legal counsel, garnished the bank deposits of the defendant but did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. He claimed that he had paid part of the money to the judge as bribes and the balance was his, as attorney's fees. Rosario demanded that the respondent turn over the proceeds, but he refused. This prompted Rosario to file an administrative case for disbarment against the respondent.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found the respondent guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of client's funds and recommended his one-year suspension from the practice of law. Following the release of the IBP Resolution, the respondent filed a series of lawsuits against the Mercado family, their lawyers, the family corporation, its accountant, and the judge who ruled against the reopening of the case. The complainants alleged that the respondent committed barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate language. They prayed for the respondent's disbarment.

The respondent denied the charges against him and asserted that the lawsuits he filed were not harassment suits but were filed in good faith based on strong facts. He also denied engaging in forum shopping, exploiting the problems of his client's family, and using intemperate language. He argued that the lawsuits were filed to hold the complainants accountable for unlawful transgressions.

After considering the records and submissions of the parties, the Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court stressed that the practice of law is a privilege that can be revoked for misconduct. The purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to protect the public and the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent is guilty of professional malpractice and gross misconduct.

2. Whether the respondent should be disbarred.

RULING:

1. The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. The respondent is found guilty of professional malpractice and gross misconduct. As a result, the Court upholds the recommendation of the IBP to disbar the respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

• The practice of law is a privilege, not a right, which can be revoked for misconduct. (Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions; an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.)

• The purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.