SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5544. November 22, 2021.]
GREGORIO ESGUERRA, DEMETRIO BULANDOS, and DOMINADOR MANIBOG, complainants, vs.ATTY. JAIME C. ULEP, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 November 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 5544 (Gregorio Esguerra, Demetrio Bulandos, and Dominador Manibog v. Atty. Jaime C. Ulep). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the explanation with motion for fifteen (15) days extension of time to file certified true copies of documents and to comply with the Resolution dated February 20, 2002 with extremely reverential request for a copy thereof dated January 15, 2021 1 of counsel for respondent Atty. Jaime C. Ulep (respondent), in compliance with the show cause Resolution 2 dated November 16, 2020, stating that counsel and his wife were hospitalized for near-fatal strokes which greatly affected his physical and mental faculties, and requesting that he be furnished anew with a copy of the Resolution 3 dated February 20, 2002 as the same can no longer be found in their office, and that he be given fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof within which to comply with the same;
(2) the ex-parte compliance 4 dated January 29, 2021 by counsel for respondent with the show cause Resolution 5 dated November 16, 2021, stating that the belated submission of the required comment on the complaint was due to counsel and his wife's hospitalization, and submitting their medical records 6 as proof of the same; and
(3) the verified answer to the complaint 7 dated January 29, 2021 of respondent in compliance with the Resolution dated February 20, 2002.
After a judicious examination of complainants Gregorio Esguerra, Demetria Bulandos, and Dominador Manibog's (complainants) allegations, the Court resolves to DISMISS the administrative complaint against respondent absent any showing of a prima facie case against him. CAIHTE
In disbarment proceedings, the quantum of proof is substantial evidence and the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish the allegations in his complaint. 8 Jurisprudence states that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the Court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 9 Thus, complainants' failure to discharge the burden of proof requires no other conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from meting out a disbarment or suspension order, as in this case. Here, a review of the records would show that complainants failed to present a prima facie case not only on the existence of an attorney-client relationship but also the existence of conflict of interest. 10
SO ORDERED. (Hernando, J., on Official Leave).''
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 94-96.
2.Id. at 79.
3.Id. at 41.
4.Id. at 81.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6.Id. at 82-86.
7.Id. at 89-91.
8. See Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020.
9.Id.
10. Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given case. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to light for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.' (Aniñon v. Sabitsana, Jr., 685 Phil. 322, 327 [2012]; citations omitted).