A.C. No. 13378 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6106) - LORETA HEDOCIL-MENIORIA,* COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GLENN ERIC LUMBAY PERALTA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, be meted with the penalties of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years; (b) the revocation of his current notarial commission, if still existing; and (c) his perpetual disqualification as a notary public. [5] In so recommending, the IC found that respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice when he failed to require the supposed signatories of the subject documents, i.e ., Melecio and Artemio, to present any competent evidence of identification before notarizing such document. In this regard, the IC gave no weight to the dismissal of the criminal case filed against respondent, considering the difference of the required evidentiary thresholds in criminal and administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. In this regard, the IC opined that the proper evidentiary threshold in a criminal case is "proof beyond reasonable doubt;" whereas in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, it is only "preponderance of evidence." Furthermore, the IC also did not lend credence to respondent's other assertions, ruling that: (a) as regards the best evidence rule, the "certified true copy" of the document is sufficient evidence of the original as there is actually a certification by the person who is in custody of the original on record; (b) since the issue in administrative disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is whether the lawyer committed acts violative of legal ethics, it can be filed by anyone who was aggrieved by such lawyer's acts; and (c) respondent failed to provide any evidence as to his allegation that the signature appearing in the notarization portion was not his. [6] In a Resolution [7] dated November 19, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IC's Report and Recommendation. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the act complained of. The Court's Ruling The Court affirms and adopts the findings and recommendations of the IBP with modifications. At the outset, the Court would like to amend the IC's notion that the evidentiary threshold in administrative disciplinary cases against members of the Bar is "preponderance of evidence." In Reyes v. Nieva , [8] the Court had definitively stated that the quantum of proof required to hold lawyers liable in administrative cases is through substantial evidencewhich is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, viz. : Besides, the 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 Cou