THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12367. July 10, 2019.]
GERALDINE C. VILLARIN, complainant, vs.ATTY. ARCHIE B. PUSPUS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12367 (Geraldine C. Villarin vs. Atty. Archie B. Puspus). — This is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Geraldine C. Villarin (complainant) against Atty. Archie B. Puspus (respondent) for violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complainant alleged that she was employed as a collection officer of KEPKO SPC Power Corporation (KSPC) from December 19, 2012 until March 30, 2016, when she was dismissed from her employment. The complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against KSPC, which was represented by the respondent. According to the complainant, it was the respondent who signed KSPC's position papers as one of its legal counsels. However, the complainant later discovered that the respondent was not authorized to do such acts pursuant to KSPC's Secretary's Certificate. Therefore, she is convinced that the respondent committed indirect contempt for acting as attorney for KSPC without authority. The complainant prayed that the respondent be immediately disbarred. 2 HTcADC
Findings and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
In a Memorandum 3 to Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra, Director for Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), dated December 10, 2016, Commissioner Peter M. Bantilan (Commissioner Bantilan) recommended that the complaint be denied due course. After reviewing the complaint and its attachments, Commissioner Bantilan found no basis for the charge. He explained that if there is a party that should complain about the act of the respondent for signing the position papers as counsel, it should be his client, KSPC. Since KSPC has not filed any complaint against the respondent, it is logical to assume that the latter was duly authorized to represent the corporation in the illegal dismissal case. 4
Resolution of the IBP
On January 26, 2017, a resolution 5 was passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP, to wit:
RESOLUTION NO. XXII-2017-760Geraldine C. Villarin vs.
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. 6
Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to adopt and approve the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner as approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
In Aba, et al. v. Attys. De Guzman, Jr., et al., 7 the Court reiterated its oft repeated ruling that in suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence. 8 In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer continues and the complaint against him must be dismissed. 9
In the present case, the totality of evidence presented by the complainant failed to overcome the said presumption of innocence. The complainant failed to establish that the respondent committed acts of misconduct, dishonesty, falsehood, or had disobeyed laws or orders of the court. In the absence of such proof, the complaint against the respondent must be dismissed. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution dated January 26, 2017 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Accordingly, the administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Archie B. Puspus is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-7.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 161.
4.Id.
5. Signed by Assistant National Secretary Camille Bianca M. Gatmaitan-Santos; id. at 159-160.
6.Id. at 159.
7. 678 Phil. 588 (2011).
8.Id. at 601.
9.Atty. Dela Cruz v. Atty. Diesmos, 528 Phil. 927, 928-929 (2006).