THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12384. June 3, 2019.](Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5158)
LYDIA S. RESUELLO, complainant, vs.ATTY. RAYMOND GERARDO S. TANSIP, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 3, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12384 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5158) (Lydia S. Resuello v. Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip) — Before Us is an administrative complaint 1 for disbarment filed by complainant Lydia S. Resuello against respondent Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip for violation of Section 27, Rules 138 and 139-B of the Rules of Court.
Complainant avers that Atty. Tansip, as the Corporate Secretary of Facil-IT-8 Communications Corporation, was active in promoting F8 Digilink Television (TV) Box and the F8 Browser Digital Community. Complainant alleges that Atty. Tansip, together with several other individuals, have swindled hundreds of investors through promises of large return on investment. Complainant maintains that the products are fake and bogus, and did not produce income as promised by respondent and his cohorts. HTcADC
To bolster her claims, complainant asserts that Facil-IT-8 Communications Corp. has no authority or license to act as Broker and/or Dealer of Securities, Dealer in Government Securities, Investment Adviser of an Investment Company, Investment House and Transfer Agent and to sell, offer for sale or distribute securities to the public as evidenced by a Certification 2 from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Complainant added that the F8 Digilink TV Boxes are not working and expensive at P15,000.00, whereas in comparison other TV boxes are sold at a much lower price. 3
Complainant invokes Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct or by reason of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The essence of the complaint is that through schemes employed by Atty. Tansip, complainant was deceived by respondent and his cohorts that the F8 Digilink TV Boxes are in good working condition and that there is a good return on investment for the said products.
Meanwhile, complaints for syndicated estafa have been filed before the Office of the Prosecutor against Atty. Tansip and other officers of Facil-IT-8 Communications Corp.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the instant case. The Commissioner found that the complaints filed against Atty. Tansip were based on the allegation that Atty. Tansip engaged in active misrepresentation and that Atty. Tansip gave false pretenses regarding a product being sold by a company he is a part of and which product turned out to be defective. 4
The Commissioner opined that since there are various estafa complaints filed against Atty. Tansip for the said defective products, the return of the complaints to the complainants was recommended. It noted that the complaints do not sufficiently allege details of specific and particular acts on the part of Atty. Tansip constitutive of violation of his oath of office. 5
The Commissioner pointed out that more details are required since Atty. Tansip cannot be subjected to investigation on mere general allegations. It found that respondent was merely engaged in a business endeavor where the products being sold are more expensive than the competitors and could be defective. 6
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-757 7 dated January 26, 2017, which adopted the findings of fact and the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. CAIHTE
After a careful review of the records of the case, We resolve to dismiss the instant administrative case against Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip for lack of merit.
The Court finds no adequate support to sustain the complainant's allegations.
However, in this case, complainant failed to discharge the onus of proving her charges against Atty. Tansip by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.
Upon an assiduous scrutiny of the records of the case, the Court is unconvinced that the mere fact that the TV boxes being sold by Atty. Tansip did not produce a return on investment as promised, constitutes deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct proscribed under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Indubitably, the degree of proof indispensable in disbarment or suspension cases against lawyers was not met.
As aptly found by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, the complaint failed to sufficiently allege the acts which is supposedly tantamount to a violation of respondent's oath of office. Absent any showing that Atty. Tansip overstepped the bounds of propriety as a member of the Bar, the instant complaint must fail.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the instant administrative case against Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip for lack of merit. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at 6.
3.Id. at 3.
4.Id. at 23.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 21.