6/30/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
both parties, duly assisted by their respective counsel. It must be noted that
the names "Banco de Order, Ishiwata, Atty. Maneja and L. Capinpin" were
written on the Order. Complainant was in the Philippines when this case was
heard and she did not dispute the dismissal of this case. Complainant even
alleged that the case was dismissed through compromise agreement.
Compromise Agreements are regularly signed by both parties and their
counsel to merit the Court's approval. By acquiescing to the representation
of Atty. Maneja in this hearing, she ratified all his previous acts and making
them valid.
The allegations that respondent suggested a fictitious or simulated sale and
verification is a serious matter. However, evidence on record does not
sufficiently establish such fact. Hence, in the absence of sufficient and
convincing evidence showing the existence of deceit, respondent is entitled
to the presumption of innocence. It must be stressed, however, that the CBD
[Commission on Bar Discipline] is not the proper forum to adjudicate a
transaction which is purely civil in nature such as the sale of a parcel of land
and vehicle between the parties. The same have to be threshed out in the
proper court.
In disbarment proceeding just like in criminal proceedings, the respondent
lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Such presumption must be
overcome by clear preponderance of evidence. When the evidence is
insufficient, the required quantum of proof is not met, in which event, the
case must be dismissed. x x x.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that
the complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.[17]
Capinpin moved for reconsideration of the investigating commissioner's findings,[18]
but was denied.[19] On September 24, 2015, the Board of Governors of the IBP
resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.[20]
In the meantime, Capinpin filed a petition for review on certiorari[21] before this Court,
reiterating her prayer that Atty. Espiritu be held guilty for violating the Lawyer's Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and that he be dropped from the roll
of attorneys. Capinpin maintains that she obtained the services of Atty. Espiritu to
represent her in several civil cases, not knowing that the latter was a PAO laywer. While
handling the affairs of Capinpin, Atty. Espiritu took advantage of his legal knowledge
and surreptitiously transferred Capinpin's properties in his name.
The petition for review is misplaced. We held in Festin v. Atty. Zubiri,[22] that the filing
of a petition for review does not conform with the standing procedure for the
investigation of administrative complaints against lawyers.[23] Section 12 (b) and (c) of
Rules 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 dated October
13, 2015, states:
Section 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of Governors.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66573
3/8