Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=83236:57235&amp;catid=1585&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:40:03+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014 - RAUL M. FRANCIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABDON, Respondent.
RAUL M. FRANCIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABDON, Respondent.
In a verified complaint1 dated December 4, 2007 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), Raul M. Francia (complainant) prayed for the disbarment and imposition of other disciplinary sanctions on Labor Arbiter (LA) Reynaldo V. Abdon (respondent) for violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On February 4, 2008, the respondent filed his Answer2 vehemently denying the allegations in the complaint.
On August 13, 2008, both parties appeared at the mandatory conference. Upon its termination, the parties were required to submit their respective position papers afterwhich the case was submitted for resolution.
In his position paper,3 the complainant alleged that in November 2006, he had a meeting with the respondent at the Makati Cinema Square to seek his assistance with respect to a pending case in the Court of Appeals (CA) involving the labor union of Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative (NEECO III). The said case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 96096 and raffled to the 6th Division then chaired by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Justices Edgardo Sundiam (Justice Sundiam) and Celia Librea-Leagogo as members. The respondent, who is a LA at the National Labor Relations Commission, San Fernando, Pampanga, told the complainant that he can facilitate, expedite and ensure the release of a favorable decision, particularly the award of assets and management of NEECO III to the union. To bolster his representation, he told him that the same regional office where he was assigned had earlier rendered a decision in favor of the labor union and against the National Electrification Administration.4 With the respondent’s assurance, the complainant yielded.
There is no proof that respondent Reynaldo Abdon received any amount of money from complainant Raul Francia.
While it is true that respondent Reynaldo Abdon admitted that he introduced the complainant to Jaime Vistan, there is no proof that the respondent received any money from the complainant Raul Francia or from Jaime Vistan.
The attached Annex “A” of the complaint is of no moment. As pointed out by the respondent it is easy to manipulate and fabricate text messages. That complainant could have bought the said SIM card bearing the said telephone number and texted his other cellphone numbers to make it appear that such text messages came from the cellphone of the respondent. Those text messages are not reliable as evidence.
The case is now before this Court for confirmation.
Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.
After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the evidence submitted by the complainant fell short of the required quantum of proof. Aside from bare allegations, no evidence was presented to convincingly establish that the respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct, particularly in extortion and influence-peddling.
Firstly, the transcript of the alleged exchange of text messages between the complainant and the respondent cannot be admitted in evidence since the same was not authenticated in accordance with A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, pertaining to the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Without proper authentication, the text messages presented by the complainant have no evidentiary value.
It is clear from the foregoing that Pena never had the opportunity to meet the respondent. He never knew the respondent and did not actually see him receiving the money that the union members raised as facilitation fee. His statement does not prove at all that the alleged illegal deal transpired between the complainant and the respondent. If at all, it only proved that the union members made contributions to raise the amount of money required as facilitation fee and that they gave it to the complainant for supposed delivery to the respondent. However, whether the money was actually delivered to the respondent was not known to Pena.
Demillo’s affidavit, however, does not prove any relevant fact that will establish the respondent’s culpability. To begin with, it was not established with certainty that the person whom she saw talking with the complainant was the respondent. Even assuming that respondent’s identity was established, Demillo could not have known about the complainant and respondent’s business by simply glancing at them while she was on her way to the supermarket to run some errands. That she allegedly saw the complainant handing the respondent a bulging brown supot hardly proves any illegal transaction especially that she does not have knowledge about what may have been contained in the said bag.
The complainant miserably failed to substantiate his claims with preponderant evidence. Surely, he cannot prove the respondent’s culpability by merely presenting equivocal statements of some individuals or relying on plain gestures that are capable of stirring the imagination. Considering the lasting effect of the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment on a lawyer’s professional standing, this Court cannot allow that the respondent be held liable for misconduct on the basis of surmises and imagined possibilities. A mere suspicion cannot substitute for the convincing and satisfactory proof required to justify the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer.
The respondent, however, is not entirely faultless. He has, nonetheless, engendered the suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he introduced the complainant to Vistan, who was the one who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in facilitation fee from the union members. The records bear out that the complainant, at the outset, made clear his intention to seek the respondent’s assistance in following up the union’s case in the CA. The respondent, however, instead of promptly declining the favor sought in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the complainant to Vistan, a former client who allegedly won a case in the CA in August 2006. It later turned out that Vistan represented to the complainant that he has the capacity to facilitate the favorable resolution of cases and does this for a fee. This fact was made known to him by Vistan himself during a telephone conversation when the latter told him he was given P350,000.00 as facilitation fee.34 His connection with Vistan was the reason why the complainant had suspected that he was in connivance with him and that he got a portion of the loot. His gesture of introducing the complainant to Vistan precipitated the idea that what the latter asked of him was with his approval. It registered a mistaken impression on the complainant that his case can be expeditiously resolved by resorting to extraneous means or channels. Thus, while the respondent may not have received money from the complainant, the fact is that he has made himself instrumental to Vistan’s illegal activity. In doing so, he has exposed the legal profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary for which he must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a “lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.” For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members.35 It is every lawyer’s duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.
A strong and independent judiciary is one of the key elements in the orderly administration of justice. It holds a revered status in the society as the public perceives it as the authority of what is proper and just, and abides by its pronouncements. Thus, it must keep its integrity inviolable and this entails that the members of the judiciary be extremely circumspect in their actions, whether in their public or personal dealings. Nonetheless, the duty to safeguard the good name of the judiciary is similarly required from all the members of the legal profession. The respondent, however, compromised the integrity of the judiciary by his association with a scoundrel who earns a living by dishonoring the court and maliciously imputing corrupt motives on its members.
WHEREFORE, for having committed an act which compromised the public’s trust in the justice system, Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) MONTH effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator which shall circulate the same in all courts in the country, and attached to the personal records of Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
26Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012, 676 SCRA 37, 51, citing Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361, 371.
27 A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361.
29Rodica v. Lazaro, A.C. No. 9259, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA 1, 10.
32 451 Phil. 420 (2003).
35Tahaw v. Atty. Vitan, 484 Phil. 1, 8 (2004).
36 457 Phil. 331 (2003).
37 Id. at 345, citing Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Hon. Cloribel, 142 Phil. 1, 15-16 (1970).
38Tapucar v. Atty. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66, 73 (1998).

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