A.C. No. 11710 - WILFREDO B. REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SHERWIN PROSE C. CASTAÑEDA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against him for lack of merit. [21] The Issue Before the Court The issue before the Court is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the act complained of. The Court's Ruling The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the IBP, with modification, as will be further discussed hereunder. I. At the outset, it is important to note that on April 11, 2023, the Court En Banc unanimously approved A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), repealing the CPR, Rule 138, Sections 20 to 37 and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. Section 3 of the General Provisions of the CPRA states that it "shall take effect [15] calendar days after its publication in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation." The CPRA was published in the Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin on May 14, 2023 and, hence, already effective on May 30, 2023. [22] In this relation, Section 1 of the General Provisions of the CPRA states that it " shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the [Court], its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern ." In view of the foregoing, the Court shall resolve this case under the framework of the CPRA, to the extent that it is applicable. II. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved. It is settled that the burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings rests on the complainant. [23] Section 32 of the CPRA explicitly states that the complainant bears the burden to prove the allegations against respondent by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension of a member or the Bar, complainant cannot rely on mere assumptions and suspicions as evidence. [24] Considering the facts and allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that there exists no substantial evidence to hold respondent administratively liable for the acts complained of. As the IBP Commissioner properly observed, Reyes failed to substantiate the charges against respondent considering the inadmissibility of the evidence he submitted. It bears reiterating that the Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties. In the same vein, it will not hesitate to extend its protective arm when the accusation against them is not indubitably proven, [25] as in this case. III. The Court, however, disagrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors imposing upon respondent the penalty of fine in the amount of PHP 5,000.00 each, or for a total of PHP 20,000.00, for responden