FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13237. April 26, 2022.][Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5609]
ARTURO ANTONIO P. NOLASCO, complainant, vs.ATTY. RONALDO E. RENTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13237 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5609] (Arturo Antonio P. Nolasco v. Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta). — This Court gives imprimatur to the findings of fact and recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) to dismiss the instant complaint for disbarment.
It is primal that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. 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. The quantum of proof in administrative cases, such as disbarment proceedings, is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
In sooth, the CBD correctly found no substantial evidence demonstrating that respondent Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta flouted his vows as ordained in the Lawyer's Oath.
Complainant Arturo Antonio P. Nolasco obdurately maintained that respondent devised the scheme of providing ostensible addresses of the parties to mislead the Regional Trial Court. However, he proffered no documentary evidence, apart from his own self-serving assertions, to prove his charges against respondent.
Jurisprudence teems with iterations that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. Thus, failure on the part of complainant to discharge his burden of proof by substantial evidence requires no other conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from meting out a disbarment order. 1 Indubitably, complainant's efforts to implicate respondent deserve short shrift owing to the palpable lack of substantial evidence to prove any such wrongdoing.
Notably, the Verification and Certificate 2(sic) attached to the Complaint 3 was signed by Maria Vivian P. Nolasco evincing that she wittingly swore to the truthfulness and accuracy of the statements therein according to her personal knowledge and based on authentic documents. Indeed, it was she, not respondent, who has the responsibility over the perceived fraud, if any. CAIHTE
The Court has consistently considered disbarment and suspension of an attorney as the most severe forms of disciplinary action, which should be imposed with great caution. They should be meted out only for duly proven serious administrative charges. 4 Considering the serious consequence of disbarment, this Court has likewise consistently held that only clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. 5
With the foregoing discourse, the instant administrative case has neither factual nor legal mooring, as complainant is unable to establish with substantial evidence his imputations of misconduct against respondent. The disbarment case must perforce be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." Gaerlan, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, 3 November 2020.
2.Rollo, p. 30.
3.Id. at 1-30.
4.Aguirre v. Reyes, A.C. No. 4355, 8 January 2020.
5. See Yagong v. City Prosecutor Magno, et al., 820 Phil. 291, 294 (2017).