A.C. No. 7121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1244) - EMILIANI WILFREDO R. CRUZ AND CARLOS R. CRUZ, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. EVELYN BRUL-CRUZ AND ATTY. GRACELDA N. ANDRES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) respectfully submits for the consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that Atty. Evelyn Brul-Cruz and Atty. Gracelda N. Andres be INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED from the practice of law, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. [44] (Emphasis omitted) Issue The core issue is whether respondents should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct. Our Ruling The Court adopts the findings of the OBC but modifies its recommended penalties against Atty. Evelyn and Atty. Gracelda. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis . Their purpose is neither to impose a penal or civil sanction but to purge an erring lawyer from the legal profession to protect the public and the courts. [45] Thus, the Court has cautiously exercised its disciplinary powers against lawyers who are found unfit of being members of the Bar. [46] Apropos to our disciplinary powers, the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant. [47] He/she must therefore establish by substantial evidence the guilt of the respondent lawyer warranting the imposition of the proper administrative sanction. In Buntag v. Atty. Toledo , [48] citing Spouses Boyboy v. Atty. Yabut, Jr. , [49] the Court defined the standard of substantial evidence in administrative proceedings in this wise: The standard of substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. While rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling, the obvious purpose being to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order, this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without basis in evidence having rational probative force. [50] A thorough evaluation of the records of the case at bench shows substantial evidence that both respondents are administratively liable. In Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Espiritu , [51] the Court emphasized that the legal profession is a noble calling imbued with public trust, viz .: The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed, the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To this end, all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires th