6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We stress that disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle.[29] Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.[30] In the case of Reyes v. Atty. Nieva,[31] the Court En Banc clarified that the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence, to wit: [T]he 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, "[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. 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, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. 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. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor."[32] [Pena v. Aparicio, 552 Phil. 512, 521 (2007). The complainant must then prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Basic is the rule that, mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence.[33] It is likewise well to remember that, in suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence.[34] In this case, Capinpin failed to discharge her burden of presenting substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Espiritu took advantage of his legal knowledge and profession to deceive her and appropriate her properties to himself. Capinpin's allegation that Atty. Espiritu urged her to simulate the sale of her property is unsubstantiated. Thus, it cannot be established that Atty. Espiritu engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct by falsifying the deed of sale for his benefit.[35] Finally, neither the IBP nor this Court has the authority to inquire into nor determine the rights of the parties over the property involved. We also do not attempt to make any determination as to the validity of the documents, or the regularity of the subject sale and transfer. Our function in this administrative case is limited to disciplining https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66573 5/8