THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11066. April 6, 2016.]
ATTY. ELDORADO T. LIM, complainant, vs. ATTY. MICHAEL A. PEROCHO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 6, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11066 — (Atty. Eldorado T. Lim v. Atty. Michael A. Perocho) — The Court NOTES the letter dated January 11, 2016 of the IBP transmitting the documents pertaining to this case.
For the resolution of the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment dated September 30, 2013 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by complainant Atty. Eldorado T. Lim against respondent Atty. Michael A. Perocho for alleged gross ignorance of the law, malpractice, violations of the lawyer's oath, and serious misconduct. 1
The pertinent portions of the Report and Recommendation dated September 8, 2014 of Investigating Commissioner Atty. Antonio Ray A. Ortiguera, Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP, are as follows: 2
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
xxx xxx xxx
II. STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT
xxx xxx xxx
The Complaint essentially avers that Atty. Perocho assisted a client, Josemarie Rubico, in filing a "Complaint and Answer for Intervention and with Urgent Motion for Inclusion of a Necessary Party-Litigants" ("Complaint/Answer") on the basis of Spanish titles when every law student is aware that Spanish titles are no longer admissible as proof of ownership. A copy of the Complaint/Answer was submitted as part of complainant's evidence. Complainant argues that Atty. Perocho should be disbarred for assisting his client in employing dilatory tactics aimed at defiance of the law through the filing of the baseless and unfounded Complaint/Answer.
III. RESPONDENT'S POSITION/DEFENSE
In his Answer, Atty. Perocho merely made a general statement that he did not violate any rule.
However, in the subsequently filed Position Paper, Atty. Perocho alleged that he was not the one who filed the Complaint/Answer. He alleged that his former client, Mr. Julius Dumayas, falsified his signature on the Complaint/Answer. Atty. Perocho also denied filing the Answer to this disbarment case, claiming that his signature thereon was also falsified.
IV. EVALUATION
The Investigating Commissioner examined the signatures in the Complaint/Answer and the Answer in this case with the signature in the Position Paper of Atty. Perocho and noted that there are indeed discrepancies. Given this new allegation that Atty. Perocho was not the one who filed the Complaint/Answer and Answer, the Investigating Commissioner called for a clarificatory hearing to discuss the matter with the parties involved. However, none of the parties attended the two (2) scheduled clarificatory hearings despite due notice as evidenced by the registry return cards.
Complainant has not come forward or made any attempt to challenge the claim of falsification by Atty. Perocho. Consequently, the Investigating Commission (sic) will proceed with his recommendation based on Atty. Perocho's claim that he was not the one who prepared the Complaint/Answer as well as the Answer to this disbarment case.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Supreme Court has said, "[t]he duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence." AScHCD
Considering that serious doubt exists as to the participation of Atty. Perocho in the filing of the Complaint/Answer, which is the basis of the disbarment case against him, the Investigating Commissioner recommends that the instant Complaint be DISMISSED.
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-874, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case against respondent. 3
The Court finds the recommendation of the IBP fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws.
It is settled that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. The Court will only exercise its disciplinary powers if the case against the respondent is established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. 4 Complainant failed in this regard.
In Balistoy v. Atty. Florencio A. Bron, 5 the Court, citing Manubay v. Atty. Gina C. Garcia, held that "A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in moral character, probity or good demeanor. The lawyer's guilt, however, cannot be presumed. Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability."
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Michael A. Perocho, and consider this case as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 2.
2. Id. at 49-50.
3. Id. at 49.
4. Francia v. Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014.
5. A.C. No. 8667, February 3, 2016.