FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11832. January 21, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4476]
ANTONIO CRUZ AND REMEDIOS CRUZ, petitioners,vs. ATTY. WILFREDO G. GAY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 21, 2019 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11832 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4476] (Antonio Cruz and Remedios Cruz vs. Atty. Wilfredo G. Gay)
Before Us is an unverified complaint against respondent Atty. Wilfredo G. Gay.
The spouses Segundina and Simon Jose filed an ejectment suit against the complainant, Antonio Cruz and his wife Remedios over a house in Taguig City. In 2003, the Sps. Jose won and a writ of execution was issued ordering the Sps. Cruz to vacate the premises. However, the Sps. Cruz continued to occupy the main house. 1
In the meantime, since the land where the subject house remained public land, complainant Cruz filed a protest before the Land Management Bureau (LMB) against the pending application of Jose to purchase the said land. In an Order dated March 26, 2008, the LMB ordered the subject land to be subdivided into two portions, one for Jose and the other for Cruz. Since the main house was owned by Simon Jose, Cruz got the other portion which included only the extension of the main house. 2
Sometime in September 2010, the Sps. Cruz filed their own ejectment suit against his parents-in-law, Johnny and Lily Ruiz who were occupying the extension house. The Ruizes were evicted on May 22, 2014. Finding the Ruiz spouses with their belongings on the pavement the next morning, Atty. Gay opened the main house and let them in. He likewise moved into the premises subsequently. 3 In essence, the instant complaint involves the occupation of the main house by the in-laws of complainant Cruz but was awarded by LMB to the Sps. Jose.
Briefs and position papers were required and the case was called for a mandatory conference. 4 Unfortunately, Cruz failed to show with preponderant evidence the complicity of Atty. Gay in this conflict.
In its evaluation and report, finding no proof to establish misconduct on the part of Atty. Gay, the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that the administrative case against him be dismissed for lack of evidence.
The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted and approved the report of the IBP Commissioner and recommended the dismissal of the case against Atty. Gay.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and lack of evidence to support the Complaint. Thus, the case is hereby DISMISSED. 5 (Italics in the original)
We agree with the recommendation of the IBP-BOG.
It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. It is settled that considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar. 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. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. 6
"In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint lodged against him must be dismissed." 7
WHEREFORE, in the absence of evidence to show that Atty. Wilfredo G. Gay was guilty of any misconduct, the complaint filed against him is hereby DISMISSED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to append a copy of this Resolution to respondent's record as a member of the Bar.
The Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-431 dated June 6, 2015 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors which resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dated May 19, 2015 dismissing the complaint, finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and lack of evidence to support the complaint; and the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2017-792 dated January 27, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors which resolved to deny the complainant's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution No. XXI-2015-431 dated June 6, 2015, there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors, transmitted by letter dated August 3, 2017 of Director Marlou B. Ubano, Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records and compact disc containing the PDF file of the case, are both NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 149.
2.Id. at 122-123.
3.Id. at 92.
4.Id. at 97.
5.Id. at 147.
6.Eliezer F. Castro and Bethulia C. Casafrancisco v. Atty. John Bigay, Jr. and Atty. Juan Siapno, Jr., A.C. No. 7824, July 19, 2017.
7.Id.