SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13165. April 18, 2022.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5166]
CRISTINA SANTIAGO PALMA, complainant,vs. ATTY. RAYMOND GERARDO S. TANSIP, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated18 April 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13165 [formerly CBD Case No. 16-5166] (Cristina Santiago Palma vs. Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip). — Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Cristina Santiago Palma against respondent Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip for deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct.
Upon assiduous scrutiny of the records of the case, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in her Report and Recommendation which the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors likewise adopted and approved. Accordingly, the administrative complaint for disbarment is DISMISSED.
As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved. 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. 1 Time and again, the Court has held that the burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant. 2 In this case, complainant has failed to discharge such burden.
As correctly found by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, the complaint is bereft of factual basis. Aside from certifications from various companies stating that they are not associated with Facil-IT-8 Communication Corp., complainant offers no other evidence to prove the truth of her allegations against respondent. Further, the complaint fails to state clearly and concisely the facts complained of, as required by Rule 139-B 3 of the Amended Rules of Court. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to:
i. NOTE the Notice of Resolution dated 11 July 2020 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors which approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation dated 3 July 2018 of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the complaint against respondent for lack of merit; and
ii. ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the attached Report and Recommendation which the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors likewise adopted and approved. The Complaint against Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUION TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Dillon vs. De Quiroz, A.C. No. 12876, January 12, 2021.
2.Guanzon vs. Dojillo, A.C. No. 9850, August 6, 2018.
3. Section 1. How Instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including those in the government service.
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.