v[5] Report, pp. 1-2; records, vol. 1. vi[6] Criminal Case No. 93-8748, before Judge Manuel D. Victorio. vii[7] The Opposition to Motion to Dismiss was received by the IBP on September 26, 1996. viii[8] An Ex Parte Motion to Resolve was filed by complainant on September 19, 1997. The commissioners Report was dated October 13, 1997. ix[9] Report, pp. 5-6. x[10] Citing Batacan, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1973 ed. xi[11] Ibid., citing In re Terrel, 2 Phil 266 [1903]; In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil 399 [1928]; Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil 350 [1933]. xii[12] We quote the following from the RTC decision: Under the evidence, it is shown by the testimonies of Rogelio Gatchalian and Edna Deles that indeed the accused [respondent herein] told them that the Supreme Court required him to deposit a cash bond in the appealed case. In view of such representation of the accused, private complainant [delivered] to him this said sum of money. Although the accused disavowed having received the money and disowned his signatures on the receipt and voucher, x x x his lone and uncorroborated testimony could not override the candid and positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses. xxx xxx xxx There is however preponderance of evidence to hold the accused civilly liable to the private complainant in the amount of US$ 2,555.00 which he received from the private complainant and for which he should be ordered to refund. (citations omitted, emphasis supplied) xiii[13] Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss; records, vol. 2, p. 310. xiv[14] Ibid. xv[15] Pangan v. Ramos, 107 SCRA 1 [1981]; citing In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil 399 [1928]. xvi[16] Sui generis. See In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 [1970]. xvii[17] See Moreno v. Bragat, 293 SCRA 581 [1998]. xviii[18] See Re: Agrapino A. Brillantes, 76 SCRA 1 [1977]; Maderazo, v. Del Rosario, 73 SCRA 540 [1976]; Lim v. Antonio, 41 SCRA 44 [1971]; In re Tionko, 43 Phil 191 [1922].