person who issued the [certification] x x x. However, respondent does not deny that he is the person referred to by the handwritten name P.R. Naldoza who paid the legal fees of P622.00. In addition to the said respondents Formal Offer of Evidence, he submitted to this Commission as his most important piece of evidence the Decision of acquittal in Criminal Case No. 93-8748 entitled People of the Philippines versus Primo R. Naldoza, the copy of which Decision is appended to his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss dated July 22, 1996 praying for the dismissal of the present administrative case in view of his being exonerated in the said criminal case based on the same facts and evidence.ix[9] (citations omitted) Commissioner Jose brushed aside respondents contention that his acquittal in the companion criminal case should result in the dismissal of this administrative complaint. The commissioner emphasized that the criminal case for estafax[10] was completely different from the proceedings before him; acquittal in the former did not exonerate respondent in the latter.xi[11] He further noted that the RTC Decision itself hinted at the administrative liability of respondent, since it found him civilly liable to herein complainant for $2,555.xii[12] We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be sanctioned. However, the recommended penalty is not commensurate to the gravity of the wrong perpetrated. At the outset, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondents Motion to Dismiss should be denied. In that Motion, he maintains that he should be cleared of administrative liability, because he has been acquitted of estafa which involved the same facts. He argues that the issue involved there was the very same issue litigated in this case,xiii[13] and that his exoneration was a result a full blown trial on the merits of this case.xiv[14] In a similar case, we have said: x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these [administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of xxx criminal law. Moreover, this Court in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal cases.xv[15] Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.xvi[16] They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary;xvii[17] in an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is all that is required.xviii[18] Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings.xix[19] It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case.xx[20] Conversely, respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him administratively. In the same vein, the trial courts finding of civil