A.C. No. 11369 - JEANNE MARCELO-SALUD, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROGELIO J. BOLIVAR.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio . Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor." [13] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Verily, the burden to prove the misconduct of a lawyer rests on the complainant to establish the allegations in their complaint. [14] This is in accordance with' an attorney enjoying the legal presumption that they are innocent of the charges against them until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the Court, they are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath. [15] Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and supposition of an attorney's alleged acts cannot be given credence absent any proof by substantial evidence. [16] Thus, the complainant's failure to discharge their burden of proof requires no other conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from meting out a disbarment or suspension order, as in this case. As correctly observed by the IBP, complainant was unable to prove the alleged acts of misconduct committed by respondent through substantial evidence. A review of the records shows that complainant failed to adduce any form of evidence to prove that respondent induced Dionaldo or Spouses Tolentino from refusing to vacate the subject property in the separate complaints for unlawful detainer. In particular, it observed that complainant did not present any evidence to show that respondent provided Dionaldo or Spouses Tolentino the information that the subject property in the unlawful detainer cases is owned by La Compania. Similarly, there was no evidence to show that respondent unduly delayed the proceedings in the case against Spouses Tolentino. As noted by the IC, a singular instance of postponement could not be considered as an act of unduly delaying the proceedings with malice. Considering the foregoing, complainant's accusations against respondent regarding .this matter should be dismissed for lack of merit. Nonetheless, the Court holds that respondent should be held accountable for violating the rule against representing conflicting interests. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all c