Ramos v. Diloy, Jr.
This is a civil administrative case regarding a disbarment complaint filed by Raniero Ramos and others against Atty. Jose S. Diloy, Jr. The complainants accused Atty. Diloy of corrupting a public official, grave misconduct, and filing nuisance suits against them. However, the Supreme Court, through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline and Board of Governors, found that the evidence presented by the complainants was insufficient to support their allegations. Thus, the disbarment complaint against Atty. Diloy was dismissed due to lack of merit. The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence, which is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden of proof rests upon the complainants to prove their allegations.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12950. February 17, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3141]
RANIERO RAMOS, REMEDIOS PAJARILLO, ZENAIDA RODRIGUEZ, ANALIZA CORDOVA, MA. LUPHELL ROMERO, GLEENA DE JESUS, SEGUNDO CABALLERO, TEODORICO TABLA, FRANCISCO ANSONG, BIENVENIDA VALENTIN, MARIANO BELARDO, MARCELINO CALIXTRO, and ANDRES PEPINO, complainants,vs. ATTY. JOSE S. DILOY, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 17, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12950 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3141] (Raniero Ramos, Remedios Pajarillo, Zenaida Rodriguez, Analiza Cordova, Ma. Luphell Romero, Gleena De Jesus, Segundo Caballero, Teodorico Tabla, Francisco Ansong, Bienvenida Valentin, Mariano Belardo, Marcelino Calixtro, and Andres Pepino v. Atty. Jose S. Diloy, Jr.). — Before this Court is a Complaint 1 for disbarment filed by complainants against Atty. Jose S. Diloy, Jr. (respondent) for corrupting a public official, grave misconduct, and filing of nuisance suits against complainants.
This Court agrees with the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline and Board of Governors. The administrative complaint against respondent should be dismissed for lack of merit.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." 2 The burden of proof rests upon the complainants to prove their allegations. Here, the evidence presented by complainants failed to discharge such burden.
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment respondent Atty. Jose S. Diloy, Jr. is DISMISSED.
The Notice of Resolution dated September 7, 2019 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors, transmitted by letter dated October 8, 2020 of Director Randall C. Tabayoyong, Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records and compact disc containing the PDF file of the case, is NOTED. AaCTcI
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, pp. 2-9.
2.Gubaton v. Atty. Amador, A.C. No. 8962, July 9, 2018.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU