Velez vs. Atty. De Vera, AC No. 6697, July 25, 2006
Facts of the case:
Complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez moved for the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent
Atty. Leonard deVera based on the following grounds:
1) Atty. De Veras alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension order rendered
against him by the State Bar ofCalifornia.
2) That the respondent, in appropriating for his own benefit funds due his client, was found
to have performed an act constituting moral turpitude by the Hearing Referee Bill Dozier,
Hearing Department, San Francisco, State Bar ofCalifornia. Complainant alleged that the
respondent was then forced to resign or surrender his license to practice law inthe said state
in order to evade the recommended 3 year suspension. Complainant maintained that there
is substantial evidence showing respondent's moral baseness, vileness and depravity, which
could be used as a basis for his disbarment. Complainant stressed that the respondent never
denied that he used his client's money. Complainant argued that the respondent failed to
present evidence that the SC of California accepted the latter's resignation and even if such
was accepted, complainant posited that this should not absolve the respondent from liability.
Issue:
Whether respondent’s malpractice amounts to moral turpitude.
Held:
YES. Atty. de Vera did not deny complainant's (Julius Willis) allegation in the latter's
memorandum that he (de Vera) received US$12,000.00 intended for his client and that he
deposited said amount in his personal account and not in a separate trust account and that,
finally, he spent the amount for personal purposes. Atty. De Vera insists that Julius’ father
authorized him to use the money, and has repayed the full amount even before the
administrative case was filed against him. However, aside from these self-serving
statements, the SC cannot find anywhere in the records of this case proof that indeed Atty.
de Vera was duly authorized to use the funds of his client.
In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in holding on to his client’s money without the
latter’s acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear that
Atty. de Vera, by depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own
benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior.
Nevertheless, we do not agree with complainant’s plea to disbar respondent from the practice
of law. Considering the amount involved here, a 2-year suspension is appropriate.