SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12981. April 18, 2022.]
ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, complainant,vs. ATTY. VICENTE A. BALISADO AND ATTY. MIGUEL C. MORALES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated18 April 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12981 (Atty. Leticia E. Ala v. Atty. Vicente A. Balisado and Atty. Miguel C. Morales). — The Court adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Atty. Leticia E. Ala (Atty. Ala) did not submit authenticated documents to support her claim, but stubbornly asked the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) to produce it for her (considering the progress of the earlier CBD Case No. 06-1846 against her). Atty. Ala herself should have endeavored to secure the certified true copies of the documents she intended to present, and submit these to the Investigating Commissioner in the present case. She cannot expect the IBP-CBD, or the Investigating Commissioner, to do this for her, or assume that all cases related to her before the IBP will be lumped together by the IBP.
Moreover, Atty. Ala was insisting that the instant case and CBD Case No. 06-1846 should be investigated together even if these two cases were not consolidated, 1 and did not have the same respondents. To stress, in CBD Case No. 06-1846, Atty. Ala is the respondent. In the case at bench, Attys. Vicente A. Balisado (Atty. Balisado) and Atty. Miguel C. Morales (Atty. Morales) are the respondents. This is notwithstanding Atty. Ala's claim that the circumstances surrounding these administrative cases are intertwined.
Even if the Court were to consider the uncertified attachments that Atty. Ala submitted in this case, those documents failed to demonstrate how the herein respondents committed infractions or violations of the Lawyer's Oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility. Some of the documents displayed Atty. Balisado's functions when he represented Denis Guy Martin (Denis) in a number of cases against Rebecca E. Ala-Martin (Rebecca). Likewise, the other documents pertained to Atty. Morales acting as Denis' counsel in the administrative complaint against Atty. Ala. Nevertheless, after assessment, the said attachments did not show how either Atty. Balisado or Atty. Morales committed any infraction that would make them accountable as members of the Bar. CAIHTE
Indeed, "[f]or the Court to exercise its disciplinary power, the burden of proof in a disbarment proceeding rests upon the complainant who must establish with substantial evidence that the lawyer committed acts or omissions which reflect his or her unfitness to be a member of the Bar. Substantial evidence is defined as 'that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." 2 Here, Atty. Ala failed to prove with substantial evidence that respondents committed acts contrary to law, the Code of Professional Responsibility, or the Lawyer's Oath, which would justify the imposition of disciplinary action upon them.
Based on the allegations of the parties, Atty. Ala filed the instant complaint as some form of revenge against respondents: Atty. Balisado for representing Denis in some of the cases that Atty. Ala handled for her sister Rebecca; and Atty. Morales for representing Denis in the administrative complaint against Atty. Ala.
It should be emphasized that "[e]very person has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Considering the gravity of the consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a lawyer, the Court has consistently ruled that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his/her complaint through substantial evidence." 3 As already stated, Atty. Ala failed to substantially prove her claims that Atty. Balisado and Atty. Morales, as lawyers, should be administratively sanctioned. Additionally, given the insufficiency and unsubstantiated allegations of Atty. Ala, the Court finds that the respondents did not commit any of the grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 4 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the instant Complaint against Atty. Vicente A. Balisado and Atty. Miguel C. Morales is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Letter dated September 29, 2021 of Avelino V. Sales, Jr., Director for Bar Discipline, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 170-171.
2.Buenaventura v. Gille, A.C. No. 7446, December 9, 2020, which cited Domingo v. Sacdalan, A.C. No. 12475, March 26, 2019.
3.Spouses Nocuenca v. Atty. Bensi, A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020.
4. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.