A.C. No. 11087 - PASTOR ABARACOSO MACAVENTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTORNEY ANTHONY C. NUYDA.

Ruling

Accordingly the respondent filed his Compliance Report [12] on the Implementation of the Decision of the OMB dated June 1, 2015. Verily, for Atty. Nuyda, he was just following orders from his superior and the subsequent confirmation by the OMB that the action taken by the DILG was correct only show that he did not violate any law or rule more so the CPR. On December 6, 2016, the case was set for mandatory conference wherein only the counsel of Atty. Nuyda was present. The mandatory conference was reset on January 9, 2016 to give an opportunity for the complainant to appear. However, at the said mandatory conference, the complainant once again failed to appear. Meanwhile, Atty. Nuyda, together his counsel, was present. This prompted the Investigating Commissioner to terminate the mandatory conference and order the parties to submit their respective position papers, attaching thereto their supporting documents and the affidavits of their witnesses. Atty. Nuyda filed his Position Paper [13] on February 6, 2017, while the complainant did not. After reviewing the records of the case, the IBP-CBD decided not to conduct any further clarificatory hearing and considered the matter submitted for report and recommendation. Upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties in their respective pleadings, the IBP-CBD submitted its Report and Recommendation [14] dated July 28, 2017, dismissing the complaint of Macaventa for lack of merit. Thus, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that there was no gross neglect of duty on the part of Atty. Nuyda. This ruling is based on the fact that Atty. Nuyda simply followed the directive to given to him by his superior at the DILG and there was never any intentional or willful disobedience to the Decision of the OMB, as the latter eventually confirmed that its order dismissing Governor Tanco from the service can no longer be implemented. In a Resolution [15] dated October 4, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt the aforesaid Report and Recommendation dismissing the complaint. On December 17, 2019, the IBP-CBD transmitted to the Court the Notices of Resolution and records of the case for appropriate action. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Our Ruling The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e. , that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. [16] In the present case, the