Source: https://attybulao.com/2012/02/26/case-2011-0243-siao-aba-miko-lumabao-almasis-lauban-and-benjamin-danda-vs-attys-salvador-de-guzman-jr-wenceslao-peewee-trinidad-and-andresito-fornier-a-c-no-7649-14-dec/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:36:43+00:00

Document:
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and DISMISS the charges against Attys. Wenceslao “Peewee” Trinidad and Andresito Fornier for utter lack of merit. We REVERSE the Decision of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, modifying and increasing the penalty in the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and accordingly DISMISS the charges against Atty. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. also for utter lack of merit.
WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION ABOUT ONE CHARGED WITH CRIME?
HE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT OF THE CRIME 0R WRONGDOING.
IN THE CASE OF A LAWYER CHARGED WITH WRONGDOING IN HIS CAPACITY AS LAWYER, WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION ABOUT HIM?
HE IS INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES. HE PERFORMED HIS DUTIES IN ACCORD WITH HIS OATH.
THE DUTY OF A PARTY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE FACTS IN ISSUE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM OR DEFENSE BY THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY LAW.
WHAT PROOF IS NECESSARY IN DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS?
GIVE THE HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE?
WHAT IS MEANT BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE?
EVIDENCE WHICH IS MORE CONVINCING.
WHAT SHOULD THE COURT CONSIDER IN DETERMINING PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE?
(D) THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT PREPONDERANCE IS NECESSARILY WITH THE GREATER NUMBER.
WHAT DETERMINES WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE?
ITS EFFECT IN CONVINCING THE JUDGE.
SUPPOSE THE EVIDENCE ARE EVENLY BALANCED, HOW WILL THE COURT RULE?
ACCORDING TO THE EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.75 It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.76 Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
To summarize, the Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.
HOW DID THE SC DECIDE THE CASE AGAINST DE GUZMAN?
THE SC DISMISSED THE CASE. THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AGAINST HIM WERE SPURIOUS. COMPLAINANTS DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING BODY. DE GUZMAN DENIED THE CHARGES.
The Court reverses the Decision of the Board of Governors and the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner regarding De Guzman’s liability for the following reasons: (a) the documents submitted by complainants in support of their complaint are not credible; (b) complainants did not appear in any of the mandatory conference proceedings to substantiate the allegations in their complaint; and (c) complainants were not able to prove by preponderance of evidence that De Guzman communicated with them for the purpose of filing fabricated illegal recruitment charges for purposes of extortion.
This is to certify that based on available records of the Office, ALMASIS LAUBAN, MIKO LUMABAO and SIAO ALBA were among the respondents named and charged with Violation of Republic Act No. 8042 under I.S. No. 06-1835, Page 254, Vol. XVI, and I.S. No. 06-1676, Page 240, Vol. XVI, which complaints were dismissed thru a Joint Resolution dated December 29, 2006 rendered by the Office.
To repeat, complainants deceived and misled the Investigating Commissioner, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and this Court into believing that the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Affidavit of Complaint, which contained all their allegations of misconduct, were submitted and sworn to before a prosecutor. This deception gives doubt to the credibility of the other documents complainants submitted in support of their administrative charges against respondents. Worse, complainants submitted falsified documents to the Investigating Commissioner, the Board of Governors, and this Court.
Second, De Guzman, Fornier and Trinidadall claim that complainants are part of a syndicate headed by Montesclaros that has perfected the filing of fabricated criminal charges. Given this claim that complainants are well-adept in filing fabricated criminal charges supported by fabricated documents, this Court is more cautious in appreciating the supporting documents submitted by complainants. Complainants bear the burden of proof to establish that all the documents they submitted in support of their allegations of misconduct against respondents are authentic. Unfortunately, complainants did not even attend any mandatory conference called by the Investigating Commissioner to identify the documents and substantiate or narrate in detail the allegations of misconduct allegedly committed by respondents. To make matters worse, the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Affidavit of Complaint complainants attached to their Letter-Complaint, which supposedly contained all their allegations of misconduct against respondents, is spurious, not having been submitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan, despite purportedly having the signature and seal of the prosecutor.
Third, the allegations of complainants lack material details to prove their communication with De Guzman. If De Guzman really called and texted them that a warrant of arrest would be issued, what mobile number did De Guzman use? Out of the voluminous documents that complainants submitted, where is the warrant for their arrest? What is their occupation or profession? Who are these complainants? These questions are unanswered because complainants did not even bother to attend any mandatory conference called by the Investigating Commissioner, despite due notice. For this reason, the allegations of De Guzman’s misconduct are really doubtful.
Thank you very much for a wonderful visit toCotabatoCity. I learned much about the South and the way of life there.
It took me time to prepare the complaint to be filed. In the meantime, the son-of-a-gun filed charges against us inMarawiCity! I have addressed the affidavit-complaint directly to your man, Ben Danda, with instructions for him and the other two complainants to sign the same before an assistant prosecutor and file with City Prosecutor Bagasao. But we are relying on you to orchestrate the whole thing, from the prosecutor to the RTC Judge, especially the warrants of arrest.
The signatures of De Guzman in his Affidavit of Clarification and in the purported letter have material discrepancies. At the same time, complainants did not even explain how they were able to get a copy of the purported letter. Complainants did not present the recipients, Orlando Badoy or Atty. Francis V. Gustilo, to authenticate the letter. In addition, none of the complainants appeared before the Investigating Commissioner to substantiate their allegations or authenticate the supporting documents.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the documents submitted by complainants in support of their complaint against De Guzman are not credible. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the charges against De Guzman.
De Guzman enjoys the legal presumption that he committed no crime or wrongdoing. Complainants have the burden of proof to prove their allegations of misconduct against De Guzman. Complainants were not able to discharge this burden because the documents they submitted were not authenticated and were apparently fabricated. Also, complainants did not appear in the mandatory conference proceedings to substantiate the allegations in their complaint. In disbarment proceedings, what is required to merit the administrative penalty is preponderance of evidence, which weight is even higher than substantial evidence in the hierarchy of evidentiary values. Complainants were not able to prove by preponderance of evidence that De Guzman communicated with them and persuaded them to file fabricated charges against other people for the purpose of extorting money. In fact, even if the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced, the Court must rule in favor of De Guzman according to the equipoise doctrine. For these reasons, the Court reverses the Decision of the Board of Governors and the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and accordingly dismisses the charges against De Guzman.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CASE AGAINST TRINIDAD AND FORNIER?
DISMISSAL OF CASE WAS AFFIRMED. COMPLAINANTS FAILED MISERABLY TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CHARGES AGAINST RESPONDENTS. OTHER THAN THEIR BARE ALLEGATIONS, THE COMPLAINANTS DID NOT ADDUCE PROOF OF RESPONDENT’S SUPPOSED INVOLVEMENT OR PARTICIPATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF.
A careful persusal of the allegations in as well as the attachments to the Joint Counter Affidavit with Affidavit of Complaint reveals that Complainants failed miserably to substantiate their charges against Respondents. Other than their bare allegations, the Complainants did not adduce proof of Respondent’s supposed involvement or participation directly or indirectly in the acts complained of. For instance, they failed to prove though faintly that Respondents had gone to Cotabato City to personally induce and persuade the complainants to file illegal recruitment charges against Atty. Nicanor G. Alvarez and sixteen (16) others or that they have prodded and stirred them to do so as they did by any form of communication. The supposed telephone call the Respondents and their supposed cohorts had made during the proceedings before the Cotabato City Prosecutor’s Office to the Complainants is unbelievable and absurd. It is inconceivable that Complainants could have answered the calls of six (6) persons during a serious proceeding such as the inquest or preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint before the City Prosecutor. To the undersigned, the fallacy of the allegation above strongly militates against the reliabiity of Complainants’ charges against Respondents.
c. If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board’s resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise.
Here, complainants did not appeal the Decision of the Board of Governors dismissing the charges againstTrinidadand Fornier. In fact, complainants filed with this Court a Motion to Dismiss Complaint Against Trinidad and Fornier.
This is an administrative complaint filed by Siao Aba, Miko Lumabao, Almasis Lauban and Benjamin Danda (complainants) against lawyers Salvador De Guzman, Jr., Wenceslao “Peewee” Trinidad, and Andresito Fornier (respondents). Complainants claim that respondents instigated and filed fabricated criminal complaints against them before the Iligan City Prosecutor’s Office for Large Scale and Syndicated Illegal Recruitment and Estafa under I.S. No. 06-1676 and I.S. No. 06-1835.1 Complainants pray for the imposition of the grave penalty of disbarment upon respondents.2 Attached to complainants’ letter-complaint is the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Affidavit of Complaint3 allegedly submitted by complainants in the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaints.
In support of their allegations in the administrative complaint, complainants submitted the allegedly fabricated complaint,16 supporting documents,17 letter of De Guzman to Cotabato City Councilor Orlando Badoy,18 De Guzman’s Affidavit of Clarification submitted in I.S. No. 2006-C-31,19 and other relevant documents. Subsequently, complainants filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint against Atty. Trinidad and Atty. Fornier,20 and prayed that the complaint be pursued against De Guzman.
In view of the foregoing, the charges against the Respondent Trinidad and Fornier are deemed to be without basis and consequently, the undersigned recommends DISMISSAL of the charges against them.
The Investigating Commissioner found, after a careful perusal of the allegations in the complaint as well as in the attachments, that complainants failed to substantiate their charges against respondents Trinidadand Fornier.63 Other than bare allegations, complainants did not adduce proof of Trinidad and Fornier’s supposed involvement or participation directly or indirectly in the acts constituting the complaint.64 In addition, complainants, on their own volition, admitted the non-participation and non-involvement of Trinidad and Fornier when complainants filed their Motion to Dismiss Complaint against Atty. Trinidad and Atty. Fornier Only.65 For these reasons, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the charges againstTrinidad and Fornier be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
The issue in this case is whetherTrinidad, Fornier and De Guzman should be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint.
We adopt the Decision of the Board of Governors and the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner on the dismissal of the charges againstTrinidadand Fornier.
We reverse the Decision of the Board of Governors and the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with regard to De Guzman’s liability, and likewise dismiss the charges against De Guzman.
70 In Re: De Guzman, 154 Phil. 127 (1974); De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 (1939); In Re: Tiongko, 43 Phil. 191 (1922); Acosta v. Serrano 166 Phil. 257 (1977).
71 Santos v. Dichoso, 174 Phil. 115 (1978); Noriega v. Sison, 210 Phil. 236 (1983).
72 Lim v. Court of Appeals, 324 Phil. 400, 413 (1996).
73 Manalo v. Roldan-Confessor, G.R. No. 102358, 19 November 1992, 215 SCRA 808.
74 Santos v. Dichoso, supra note 71; Noriega v. Sison, supra note 71.
75 Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc., 494 Phil. 603, 613 (2005); Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, 11 February 2008, 544 SCRA 206, 216.
76 Republic v. Bautista, G.R. No. 169801, 11 September 2007, 532 SCRA 598, 612.
77 Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 734, 743 (1998); Marubeni Corp. v. Lirag, 415 Phil. 29 (2001).
« LEGAL NOTE 0115: HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.