The Supreme Court clarified its supervisory role over the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and addressed the scope of membership rights within the organization. The Court emphasized that it possesses the authority to oversee all activities of the IBP, including elections, based on the constitutional power to promulgate rules affecting the IBP. The ruling upheld the right of IBP members to transfer chapter affiliation, subject to certain conditions. Furthermore, the decision underscored the requirements for candidates seeking IBP governorship, stating that as long as basic qualifications are met, the determination of moral fitness lies within the judgment of the members of the House of Delegates. This case serves as a definitive interpretation of the IBP’s internal regulations and clarifies the interplay between the IBP’s autonomy and the Supreme Court’s oversight.
The Case of the Coveted Governorship: When IBP Politics Meet Supreme Court Oversight
This case revolves around a petition filed by Attys. Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel Ravanera, and Tony Velez, seeking to disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera from being elected Governor of Eastern Mindanao in the IBP Regional Governors’ elections. The petitioners questioned De Vera’s moral fitness for the position, citing past disciplinary actions and a controversial transfer of IBP membership. The central legal question was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over internal IBP election matters and if De Vera met the qualifications for governorship. The ensuing legal battle delves deep into the IBP’s bylaws, the scope of Supreme Court supervision, and the criteria for determining moral fitness in the context of IBP leadership.
Respondent De Vera challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the election of IBP officers is an internal matter governed by IBP By-Laws. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this contention, asserting its constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning the IBP, thus establishing its implicit authority to supervise all IBP activities, including officer elections. The Court traced this authority back to the 1935 Constitution and emphasized its continuous supervision over Bar members. The IBP By-Laws themselves, as pointed out by the Court, ironically recognize the Supreme Court’s oversight by vesting it with the power to amend the By-Laws, send observers to IBP elections, and have the final decision on the removal of Board of Governors members. This established the Court’s power over the IBP and the basis for hearing the controversy.
Building on this principle, the Court addressed the issue of whether the petitioners had a valid cause of action. The IBP By-Laws provide for election protests but do not explicitly sanction the disqualification of candidates for Regional Governors. The remedy for questioning elections is limited to an election protest. However, this remedy is not available to just any member, which brings up the issue of the propriety of the remedy invoked in the instant case. The Court emphasized that prior to the 1989 amendment, disqualification proceedings were detailed in the IBP By-Laws. After the amendments of 1989, the current rules simplified the election process, leading to reduced, if not entirely eradicated, grounds for disqualification as the pool from which delegates choose is diminished, making this a simpler more localized process with less controversy. This convinced the Court to remove the disqualification proceeding. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the instant petition was uncalled for.
Respondent De Vera also claimed that petitioners were not the proper parties to bring the suit. Only qualified nominees can file a written protest with the President of the IBP. Petitioners Garcia, Ravanera and Velez, are from the Bukidnon IBP Chapter and Misamis Oriental IBP Chapter, respectively. These locations make the petitioners not qualified to be nominated and elected. Petitioners further contended that De Vera’s membership transfer to Agusan del Sur violated the domicile rule, but the Court dismissed this claim. It clarified that under Section 19 Article II of the IBP By-Laws, lawyers can register with their preferred IBP Chapter, not necessarily the one where they reside or work, with the one caveat that an attorney can only be a member of one chapter. Moreover, Section 29-2 allows IBP membership transfers if completed three months before chapter elections, and this was completed in De Vera’s case.
The petitioners argued that De Vera lacked the moral fitness to hold office because he was sanctioned by the Supreme Court for contempt of court and surrendered his California law license due to an administrative complaint. In a case decided by the Court dated 29 July 2002, 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 remarks contained in two newspaper articles that criticized the Supreme Court Justices. The Court held that these past actions didn’t qualify as moral turpitude, defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity. 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. The explanation provided by respondent regarding the loss of his California license was found to be satisfactory, and petitioners failed to offer proof substantiating this case as an example of immoral fitness. Similarly, allegations that De Vera improperly housed delegates were unsubstantiated.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The primary issue was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera from running for IBP Governor of Eastern Mindanao, and whether he met the necessary qualifications for the position. This involved interpreting the scope of the Court’s supervisory powers over the IBP. |
| What did the Supreme Court rule regarding its supervision of the IBP? | The Supreme Court affirmed its authority to supervise all activities of the IBP, including elections, based on its constitutional power to promulgate rules affecting the organization. This establishes the Court’s broad oversight role in IBP governance. |
| Can IBP members transfer chapter affiliation? | Yes, IBP members can transfer their membership to another chapter, subject to the condition that the transfer is made not less than three months immediately preceding any chapter election. The Court reinforced the principle that membership in any particular location is preferential to the members themselves. |
| What qualifications are needed to run for IBP Governor? | To be eligible for IBP governorship, a candidate must be a member in good standing of the IBP, included in the voter’s list, not disqualified by relevant rules, not belong to a chapter from which a governor has already been elected, and not be in government service. It boils down to basic qualification of being active and involved. |
| Does prior disciplinary action automatically disqualify someone from running for IBP Governor? | Not necessarily. The Court held that being found guilty of indirect contempt and surrendering a law license in another jurisdiction doesn’t automatically equate to lacking moral fitness. The details are on a case to case basis. |
| What is the “domicile rule” in the context of IBP membership? | The “domicile rule” generally assigns a lawyer to the IBP chapter where their office or residence is located, unless they register a preference for a particular chapter. But in all cases, no lawyer can have membership to more than one IBP. |
| Did the petitioners in this case have legal standing? | The Court ruled that the petitioners lacked standing to bring the suit, as they were not qualified nominees for the position of IBP Governor of Eastern Mindanao and were attempting to question De Vera’s election prematurely. There was no election for a judge and it was preposterous that the plaintiff was trying to be so quick in making an argument. |
| Is a petition to disqualify a candidate the proper remedy for questioning IBP elections? | No, the proper remedy under the current IBP By-Laws is an election protest filed after the election results have been announced, not a pre-emptive petition to disqualify a candidate. The proper processes were not being followed which called to this error. |
This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s oversight of the IBP while affirming the rights of its members within established rules. Future disputes will likely turn on interpretations of “moral fitness” and adherence to the By-Laws, particularly regarding membership transfers and election procedures.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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, ON LEGAL AND MORAL GROUNDS, FROM BEING ELECTED IBP GOVERNOR FOR EASTERN MINDANAO IN THE MAY 31, IBP ELECTIONS, A.C. No. 6052, December 11, 2003
Leave a Reply