FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12966. May 14, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5315]
EMILY B. JAMAROLIN, complainant,vs. ATTY. DAR A. DIGA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12966 [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5315] (Emily B. Jamarolin, Complainant, v. Atty. Dar A. Diga,Respondent). — This is a disbarment case filed by complainant Emily B. Jamarolin (Jamarolin) against Atty. Dar A. Diga (Atty. Diga), who acted as counsel for Bible Temple of God, Inc. (BTGI).
In her Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Reklamo, 1 Jamarolin alleged that Atty. Diga filed cases before the court and before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dasmariñas City in his capacity as counsel for BTGI, without the knowledge and consent of the latter. In support of the charge, she attached the Letter 2 dated 10 March 2017 of Benjamin Dallo 3 (Dallo), the Vice President of BGTI, addressed to Presiding Judge Maria Rowena M. Arevalo of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Dasmariñas City, requesting the court not to execute its Decision dated 27 February 2017. Apparently, there was no resolution from BGTI which authorized the filing of cases before any court of the Office of the City Prosecutor.
Jamarolin also submitted the following: (1) Atty. Diga's Answer 4 in CBD Case No. 16-4977, wherein Atty. Diga admitted that he was the counsel of BGTI; (2) Secretary's Certificate 5 of BTGI, which authorized Avelina Dailo and Cynthia Enriquez to file cases before all courts, tribunals and bodies; (3) SEC Express System; 6 (4) Articles of Incorporation of BTGI; 7 and (5) death certificate of Reynaldo Ausente (complainant's common law spouse), 8 whose death she attributed to the cases filed by Atty. Diga against them.
The Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), 9 recommended the outright dismissal of the complaint in his Report and Recommendation 10 dated 30 August 2019. It was later on adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution dated 12 October 2019. 11 Thus, the records of the case were transmitted to the Court for final disposition.
We agree with the findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors. Necessarily, the instant administrative case against Atty. Diga should be dismissed for lack of merit.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in her complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. 12
In this case, Jamarolin failed to prove by substantial evidence her allegations against Atty. Diga. There was no proof to support her charge that Atty. Diga filed cases on behalf of BGTI sans its knowledge and consent. As ratiocinated by the Director for Bar Discipline of the IBP in his Report and Recommendation:
In the instant case, the attachments to the complaint do not show that there is a prima facie case against respondent in that the pleadings which respondent allegedly filed as counsel of BGTI were not submitted. Hence, the Commission is unable to determine on the face of the complaint if respondent did indeed file cases as counsel for BGTI. Likewise, it does not appear that complainant is a trustee, officer or member of BGTI and thus cannot personally attest if the filing of the cases being referred in the complaint was without its knowledge and consent. Finally, complainant even attached a Secretary's Certificate, which, on its face, designated certain officers of BGTI to file cases for and in behalf of BGTI. Hence, if the cases being referred by the complainant were filed by these officers in behalf of BGTI then there may even be no cause to charge respondent in the instant case. 13
Lawyers enjoy the legal presumption that they are innocent of the charges against them until proven otherwise — as officers of the court, they are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath. While the Court will not avoid its responsibility in meting out the proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties, the Court will not wield its axe against those the accusations against whom are not indubitably proven. 14
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Dar A. Diga is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 1.
2.Id. at 2-4.
3. Also spelled as "Dailo" in some part of the rollo.
4.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
5.Id. at 7.
6.Id. at 8.
7.Id. at 9-10.
8.Id. at 11.
9. Atty. Randall C. Tabayoyong.
10.Rollo, pp. 26-27.
11.Id. at 24-25.
12.Dillon v. De Quiroz, A.C. No. 12876, 12 January 2021 [Per CJ Peralta].
13.Rollo, p. 27.
14.Gayo v. Causing, A.C. No. 12618 (Notice), 26 January 2021.