FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13144. October 5, 2022.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5175]
LORENZA M. SANTIAGO, complainant, vs.ATTY. RAYMOND GERARDO S. TANSIP, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 5, 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13144 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5175] (Lorenza M. Santiago v. Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip). — Before this Court is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 for disbarment filed by complainant Lorenza M. Santiago (Santiago) against respondent Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip (Atty. Tansip), for allegedly swindling hundreds of investors in F8 DIGILINK TV BOX product and for violation of Section 27, Rules 138 and 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court.
In her complaint, Santiago claimed that Atty. Tansip and his alleged cohorts, who were the board members of FACIL-IT-8 COMMUNICATIONS CORP. (FACIL-IT-8), have deceived Santiago and other investors with the assurance that the F8 DIGILINK TV BOXES (F8 Digi-boxes) were in good quality/condition and have a good return on investment, 2 when in truth and in fact, all the F8 Digi-boxes were bogus and not working. 3 Moreover, a single item was priced at P15,000.00 when a similar product, the ABS-CBN TV Box was being sold at the price of only P1,499.00 per set. 4 This led to the filing of criminal complaints for Syndicated Estafa against Atty. Tansip and his alleged cohorts. 5
In a Report and Recommendation 6 dated 03 July 2018, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint noting that the same is bereft of factual basis. 7 On 25 July 2020, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors (IBP Board) issued a Resolution, 8 adopting the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner.
The Court NOTES the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the Resolution of the IBP Board and resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein.
As correctly found by the IBP, the records and evidence point to a conclusion that Atty. Tansip could have never participated in the sales or marketing of the F8 Digi-boxes. Atty. Tansip's role consisted in serving as FACIL-IT-8's corporate secretary. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, where most of the criminal complaints were filed, categorically stated in its resolution that the corporate records of FACIL-IT-8 show that Atty. Tansip became a shareholder, director, and corporate secretary of the company only in September 2014 and that it is impossible for Atty. Tansip to have any participation as to the alleged transaction between Santiago and the corporation which started as early as July 2014. 9
Moreover, the criminal complaints for Syndicated Estafa filed by Santiago and her other co-private complainants against Atty. Tansip were all dismissed by the respective Offices of the City Prosecutor, and the petition for appeal and motion for reconsideration thereon filed before the Department of Justice were likewise denied.
It is settled that complainants have the burden of proving their allegations against respondent. 10 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. 11 Absent any evidence showing that Atty. Tansip committed the acts complained of, this Court cannot hold him administratively liable.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." Marquez, 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. Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2. Id. at 2.
3. Id. at 1.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id., unpaginated.
7. Id., unpaginated. Signed by Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala.
8. Id., unpaginated. Signed by the National Secretary Roland B. Inting.
9. Id. See page 2 of the Report and Recommendation.
10. SeeElanga v. Pasok, A.C. No. 12030, 29 September 2020.
11. Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, 03 November 2020.