Prosecutor in Estrada case should clear self of charges — Biazon

Lawyer Leonard de Vera should stop acting as private prosecutor in the Estrada plunder case until he has cleared himself of charges of breach of business and professional ethics in his practice of law in the United States, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon said yesterday.

Biazon was reacting to reports that in 1996, the State Bar of California recommended a three-year suspension of De Vera’s law practice for alleged violation of his duties as attorney of one Julius Willis Jr.

But De Vera dismissed as a "hatchet job" reports of his alleged indiscretions in his law practice that made him decide to resign from the State Bar of California.

"Obviously, there is a demolition job launched against me especially in the media, particularly through some columnists but this is a small price for me to pay in our fight for equal justice for all," De Vera said in a statement.

De Vera clarified that he resigned from the California Bar and he was not suspended nor disbarred, neither was he an American citizen nor is he a fugitive from the law.

"I was never charged nor convicted of any crime in the US, in the Philippines nor in any other part of the world. I am free to come in and out of the US," De Vera said.

"I would like to make it clear that my personal life has nothing to do with my advocacy to pursue the plunder cases against Erap to their final conclusions. Whatever gains or shortcomings I have made in the past do not, in any way, have any bearing or effect on the Erap plunder cases," he added.

De Vera represented Willis in a suit against an insurance company that allegedly gave some $12,000 to De Vera as settlement for the injuries of Willis’ son in a vehicular accident.

But De Vera supposedly denied receiving the money and Willis complained before the State Bar of California and the "referee," retired superior court judge Bill Dozier, recommended on April 30, 1990 a three-year suspension of De Vera’s law practice.

Dozier said that evidence showed De Vera "violated the rule of professional conduct in that he failed to deposit funds belonging to a client in a trust account but instead placed the funds in his personal account and spent them for his own personal or business expenses," and that De Vera had "failed to report to his client promptly the receipt of such client funds, but instead denied the receipt."

De Vera resigned his membership in the California State Bar while the Willis case was pending, and the Supreme Court ordered the case terminated "without prejudice to further proceedings in the event respondent (De Vera) applies for reinstatement."

Biazon said that it would be for the best interest of all concerned that De Vera resigns from the prosecution panel because of the clouds hovering over the ethics of De Vera’s law practice.

"If any officer of the court, whether for the prosecution or the defense, is being hobbled by such cases, then this will reduce his credibility and effectivity," Biazon contended.

He stressed that De Vera’s resignation from the Estrada prosecution does not necessarily mean that he is really guilty of unethical practices. He said that it would merely give De Vera the chance to clear his name.

Biazon added that De Vera could resume his role as private prosecutor the moment he has fully explained his actuation in the Willis case.

"But the bottom line still depends on the Sandiganbayan justices handling the case," Biazon stressed.