SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9201. September 19, 2018.]
JAY ORLANDO DC. VALINO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. EDGARDO G. VILLARIN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 September 2018which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9201 (Jay Orlando DC. Valino vs. Atty. Edgardo G. Villarin). — For the Court's resolution is the petition for review 1 filed by Jay Orlando C. Valino (complainant) assailing the Resolution No. XXII-2016-498 2 dated September 23, 2016 and Resolution No. XXII-2017-1118 3 dated May 27, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors.
After perusal of the records of this case, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings of fact of the Investigating Commissioner as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors. The Court also sustains the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, dismissing the complainant's complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Edgardo G. Villarin (Atty. Villarin). AScHCD
It is settled that an attorney enjoys the presumption of innocence, and whoever initiates administrative proceedings against the attorney bears the burden of proof to establish the allegation of professional misconduct. When the complainant fails to discharge the burden of proof, the Court has no alternative but to dismiss the charge and absolve the attorney. 4
Additionally, the Court cannot tolerate baseless charges against lawyers because they are officers of the court who are placed under the Court's supervision and control due to the law imposing upon them peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities. The Court exists in a symbiotic environment with them where their duty to defend the courts is reciprocated by shielding them from vindictive individuals who are deterred by nothing just to strip them of their privilege to practice law. 5
The Court finds the present disbarment complaint against Atty. Villarin to be nothing but an attempt to vex or get even with him for representing his client against the complainant. This can be deduced from the numerous cases filed by the complainant in different forums in the hope of obtaining a favorable judgment. His attempt to recover the property lost by his parents because of their previous dealings with Rural Bank of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, Inc. is regrettably not adequate to make out a valid complaint for disbarment against Atty. Villarin. Complainant's resort to filing the administrative complaint, as well as the instant petition, against Atty. Villarin is thus an ill-motivated bid to disbar him.
In fine, since the complainant failed to discharge the onus of proving his charges against Atty. Villarin by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, the present petition for review of the IBP's dismissal of his complaint must fail. HESIcT
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.
SO ORDERED." (Carpio, J., on wellness leave; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2592 dated September 5, 2018; J. Reyes, Jr., J., no part as he penned the Court of Appeals decision, a related case; Tijam, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587-F dated September 14, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2023-2025.
2.Id. at 2014-2015.
3.Id. at 2013.
4.Seares, Jr. v. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, 698 Phil. 596, 607 (2012).
5.Id. at 608.