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." [21] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted) Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It has been consistently defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [22] Guided by this definition, the Court finds that complainant was able to discharge his burden of proof in his claims against respondent with regard to unlawful solicitation of labor cases and promotion of his legal services and in corrupting NLRC employees. Sharing of fees with and delegation of legal tasks to a non-lawyer The main thrust of the complaint and the supplemental complaint has to do with: (1) the alleged deliberate failure of respondent to honor his agreement with complainant to divide in equal shares all commissions or attorney's fees that respondent will receive from all the labor cases complainant would bring into the law office; and (2) the delegation by respondent to complainant of legal tasks, specifically with the preparation and signing of pleadings. Indeed, Section 43, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) prohibits lawyers from sharing, splitting, dividing, or from stipulating to divide, directly or indirectly, a fee for legal services with persons or organizations not licensed or authorized to practice law. Section 35, Canon II of the CPRA, in turn, enumerates the legal tasks which a lawyer shall not delegate to or permit a non-lawyer, including a paralegal, to do. Paragraph (h) thereof specifically instructs that the performance of any of the duties that only lawyers may undertake shall not be delegated. In holding that there was no merit to the allegations of complainant, however, the IBP-CBD held: The evidence submitted fell short of proving that Atty. Villa divided or stipulated to divide the attorney's fees to Rebarter, a non[-]lawyer, money collected from clients in labor cases. Rebarter merely alleged that labor cases were settled for the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and others for some amount, but he never submitted proof that indeed Atty. Villa received the am