A.C. No. 10031 - RAUL M. FRANCIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABDON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. [20] Upon review of the case, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-545, [21] reversing the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, disposing thus: RESOLVED TO REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and APPROVE the SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one (1) year of Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon and to Return the Amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]250,000.00) within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice. [22] On February 23, 2009, the respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration [23] but the IBP Board of Governors denied the same in its Resolution No. XX-2013-55, [24] which reads: RESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondents Motion for Reconsideration there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-545 dated November 20, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED . [25] The case is now before this Court for confirmation. It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. [26] In Aba v. De Guzman, Jr. , [27] the Court reiterated that a preponderance of evidence is necessary before a lawyer maybe held administratively liable, to wit: Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number. [28] (Citations omitted) In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him must be dismissed. [29] After a