FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13141. October 19, 2022.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5151]
DELWASEN P. YAPA, complainant,vs. ATTY. RAYMOND GERARDO S. TANSIP, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take note that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 19, 2022, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13141 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5151] (Delwasen P. Yapa v. Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip). — In administrative and disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the complainant has the burden of proof to establish the culpability of the lawyer by presenting substantial evidence in support of the allegations. 1
Factual Antecedents
Delwasen Palitayan Yapa filed a Complaint-Affidavit 2 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) against Atty. Raymond Gerardo Tansip (Atty. Tansip) arguing that the latter's acts of deception amounted to gross misconduct which calls for his disbarment. 3
Complainant alleged that Atty. Tansip actively advertised the F8 Digilink TV Box and F8 Browser Digital Community (F8 Digilink) as the next generation TV Box as it does not only allow the client to watch television from the digital box, but also provides a home-based business in a box by allowing clients to start bills payment, prepaid cell loading and remittance businesses. 4
Complainant, however, alleged that the F8 Digilink product Atty. Tansip is offering were fake and did not produce the income it promised. Complainant paid P15,000.00 for the F8 digilink product which he claimed to be overpriced compared to other well-known and commercially available digital boxes. To bolster his claim of deception on the part of Atty. Tansip, complainant secured Certifications from China Banking Corporation, Robinsons Land Corporation, MERALCO, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, and Globe Telecommunications, Inc. that their respective companies are not connected to in any way to FACIL-IT-8 COMMUNICATION CORP., thus remittance and payments made through such facility are not credited to the following companies. In addition, complainant also secured a Certification from the National Telecommunications Commission stating that FACIL-IT-8 COMMUNICATION CORP. has not been issued any type of acceptance/approval certificate relative to the F8 Digilink. 5
In his defense, respondent alleged that he is the Corporate Secretary of FACIL-IT-8 COMMUNICATION CORP. His tasks included the drafting of agreements, memoranda and contracts including the handling of all paper works of the company. 6 Atty. Tansip denied having offered or enticed complainant to buy nor had he sold any product of the company. He stressed that his participation in the company affairs was limited to the drafting of documents and agreements. While it is true that Delwasen and other individual complainants have filed criminal complaints of Estafa against Atty. Tansip, such complaints have all been dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor, as well as the appeals filed before the Department of Justice.
The Office of the City Prosecutor found it impossible for respondent to have participated in the complained transaction since it was executed two months before Atty. Tansip joined the company. CAIHTE
Report and Recommendation of the
The IBP-CBD recommended that the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Tansip for lack of merit. 7 The recommendation was the adopted by the Board of Governors in its Resolution dated July 11, 2020. 8
Our Ruling
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP to dismiss the complaint against Atty. Tansip.
Respondent has satisfactorily established that as the Corporate Secretary of FACIL-IT-8 COMMUNICATION CORP., his tasks are well-defined and specific and did not include the advertising, marketing, selling, or even offering to sell the products of the company. The extent of his participation is limited to the drafting of agreements. Moreover, respondent has joined the company only on September of 2014, or after the complained transaction between the company and the complainant was perfected in July 2014.
A perusal of the records shows that complainant has failed to adduce substantial evidence sufficient to prove that Atty. Tansip has been conducting affairs amounting to gross misconduct. Complainant even failed to cite the pertinent rules which Atty. Tansip has allegedly violated, nor did he categorically state the extent of participation and deception committed by Atty. Tansip. Complainant mainly averred that he was duped into buying a defective product for an exhorbitant price without specifying the particulars of respondent's participation. Other than his bare accusation, no other basis for this complaint has been offered, let alone argued by the complainant. In fact, as noted by the IBP-CBD, complainant did not even attend the mandatory conference nor submitted a position paper. Clearly, the complaint has no leg to stand on.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations of the complaint by substantial evidence. Failure to do so will lead to the dismissal of the complaint for its lack of merit. 9
While this Court is duty-bound to cleanse the legal profession by disciplining erring members of the bar, this Court will likewise protect lawyers and legal practitioners from unsubstantiated allegations by dismissing administrative or disbarment cases, as in this case. 10
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against Atty. Raymond Gerardo S. Tansip for its utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. National Bureau of Investigation v. Najera, G.R. No. 237522, June 30, 2020.
2. Rollo, pp. 1-2.
3. Id.
4. Id. at 17.
5. Id. at 4-13.
6. Id., unpaginated. Report and Recommendation, p. 2.
7. Id., unpaginated. Report and Recommendation, p. 3.
8. Rollo, unpaginaged.
9. In re AMA Land, Inc., 729 Phil. 1, 7 (2014).
10. Biliran v. Bantugan, A.C. No. 8451, September 30, 2020.