[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
562 views1 page

263 in Re Petition To Disqualify Atty de Vera

The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the internal matters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Petitioners sought to disqualify respondent Atty. De Vera from running for Governor of Eastern Mindanao in the IBP regional elections, arguing he lacked moral aptitude. Respondent asserted the matter was internal to the IBP. However, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to promulgate rules concerning the IBP. The IBP By-Laws also recognize the Supreme Court's power of supervision over the IBP, including amending the By-Laws and having final decision on removal of IBP governors.

Uploaded by

Vian O.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
562 views1 page

263 in Re Petition To Disqualify Atty de Vera

The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the internal matters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Petitioners sought to disqualify respondent Atty. De Vera from running for Governor of Eastern Mindanao in the IBP regional elections, arguing he lacked moral aptitude. Respondent asserted the matter was internal to the IBP. However, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to promulgate rules concerning the IBP. The IBP By-Laws also recognize the Supreme Court's power of supervision over the IBP, including amending the By-Laws and having final decision on removal of IBP governors.

Uploaded by

Vian O.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY.

DE VERA

A.C. No. 6052

DECEMBER 11, 2003

FACTS:

Petitioners Attys. Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel Ravena and Tony Velez seeks to disqualify
respondent Atty. Leonardo De Vera from being elected Governor of Eastern Mindanao in the 16 th IBP
Regional Governors Elections. Petitioners argue that respondent lacks the requisite moral aptitude to
run for the said position. Respondent asserts that the Court has no jurisdiction over the present
controversy as 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the internal matters of IBP?

RULING:

Yes. 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.

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:

(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.

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 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, the Court is authorized to send observers in IBP elections, whether local or
national. Section 44 empowers the Court to have the final decision on the removal of the members of
the Board of Governors.

You might also like