SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. 11909. April 16, 2018.]
SPOUSES VLADIMIR AND VERONICA CABAÑA, complainants,vs. ATTY. SAUL Q. HOFILEÑA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 April 2018which reads as follows: TAIaHE
"A.C. 11909 (Spouses Vladimir and Veronica Cabaña v. Atty. Saul Q. Hofileña, Jr.). — The extant case originated from a disbarment complaint which the complainants spouses Vladimir and Veronica Cabaña filed against respondent Atty. Saul Q. Hofileña, Jr. for purportedly presenting an impostor as a witness in Civil Case No. C-21594 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 123.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
Complainants spouses Vladimir and Veronica Cabaña filed a civil case for a sum of money against the Cavite Ideal International Construction and Development Corporation (CAVDEAL), which was docketed as Civil Case No. C-21594 and raffled to Branch 123 of the RTC Caloocan. Respondent Atty. Saul Q. Hofileña, Jr. was CAVDEAL's lawyer and, likewise, represented CAVDEAL's sister company as an intervenor in said case.
During the trial of the case on April 15, 2013, Atty. Hofileña called to the stand, as one of CAVDEAL's witnesses, a person whom he introduced as Lamberto Lee, Jr. The Cabañas opposed the presentation of Lee as witness on the ground that he was not the real Lamberto Lee, Jr. They alleged that the age given before the court interpreter when he had been sworn in before testifying was 56 years old, while Lee's real age was 57 years old, being born on March 13, 1956. They likewise presented a photo of Lee's supposed impersonator taken during the June 19, 2013 hearing, a close examination of which would readily reveal that said person was not actually Lee. Moreover, during the March 12, 2014 hearing, Atty. Hofileña manifested that he was withdrawing Lee's Judicial Affidavit and that Lee would no longer be appearing as a witness. The reason for this was that Atty. Hofileña allegedly knew that he was misleading the court by introducing and calling a different person to the witness stand other than the real witness. The Cabañas also submitted a Forensic Photography Report from the Philippine National Police which pointed out the comparison between the photos of the supposed Lee on June 19, 2013 and that of the real Lee on September 25, 2014.
For his defense, Atty. Hofileña denied the accusations against him. He argued that he did not present an impostor witness before the RTC. He explained that the photos which the Cabañas presented all pertain to CAVDEAL's witness, Lamberto Lee, Jr. He submitted in evidence copies of Lee's old and new passports, and other government-issued identification cards (IDs). He likewise presented Lee's affidavit where the latter identified his IDs, confirmed that he was the person appearing in the submitted photos, and the one called to the witness stand to testify for CAVDEAL. The reason why Atty. Hofileña withdrew Lee's testimony in the aforementioned case was not because he knew he was an impostor but because Lee's testimony was merely corroborative and no longer necessary for the case. He averred that the disbarment complaint against him was a mere retaliatory suit since the Cabañas lost in the cases against CAVDEAL.
On June 4, 2016, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Hofileña for lack of evidence, thus: 1
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the disbarment Complaint against respondent ATTY. SAUL Q. HOFILEÑA, JR. be dismissed for lack of evidence.
On January 26, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXII-2017-694, 2 which adopted the aforementioned recommendation, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and recommendation of the IBP that the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Hofileña must be dismissed. cDHAES
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. 3
In the present case, a quick comparison of the photos taken on June 19, 2013 and on September 25, 2014 would easily show that they bear one and the same person, Lamberto Lee, Jr. While there seem to be differences in Lee's appearance in the subject photos, this may only be due to the fact that the photos were taken in different years.
The Forensic Photography Report presented by the Cabañas does not bear any conclusive and definitive finding that can persuade the Court to believe that the persons, as shown in the submitted photographs, are indeed two (2) different individuals. At most, said report only states that the submitted photographs reveal similarities and dissimilarities due to the different angles of the shots, and that they appear unclear and pixelated. It is even uncertain whether the report is on the comparison of the persons in the pictures, or of the photographs themselves.
Further, when the Cabañas asked that the identity of the witness be verified, it was ascertained by the presentation of Lee's government-issued IDs. After such identification, the Cabañas no longer raised any more questions on the identity of the witness.
The Court has consistently held that 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. Burden of proof, on the other hand, is defined in Section 1 of Rule 131 as the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. 4
Weight and sufficiency of evidence, under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends on its practical effect in inducing belief for the party on the judge trying the case. 5
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Likewise, charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. Besides, the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence — as opposed to preponderance of evidence — is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases. As case law elucidates, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generic. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, it also involves neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. 6
Here, the Cabañas miserably failed to discharge said burden of proof. They failed to establish their claim through relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion — that is that Atty. Hofileña indeed mislead the court, directly or indirectly, by presenting an impostor witness. Absence any substantial evidence that would categorically prove that the witness presented was not actually Lee, and Atty. Hofileña tried to deceive the court or the court was indeed deceived through the use of an impostor, the Court cannot find Atty. Hofileña guilty of violating any of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ASEcHI
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court DISMISSES the instant Complaint against Atty. Saul Q. Hofileña, Jr. for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (Carpio, J., Acting Chief Justice, per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018).
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Report and Recommendation submitted by Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. dated June 4, 2016; rollo, pp. 226-233.
2.Rollo, pp. 224-225.
3.Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, 690 Phil. 381, 396 (2012).
4.Aba, et al. v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr., et al., 678 Phil. 588, 600 (2011).
5.Id.
6.Reyes v. Atty. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, September 6, 2016, 802 SCRA 196, 220.