A.C. No. 11217 - LINO C. BERNAL, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ERNESTO M. PRIAS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, there being no clear, convincing and satisfactory proof to warrant disciplinary action against respondent, ATTY. ERNESTO M. PRIAS, we respectfully recommend that this complaint for disbarment be DISMISSED for lack of merit. [23] Our Ruling The Court resolves to reverse the IBP findings. The purpose of disbarment is mainly to determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and as participant in the dispensation of justice. [24] It is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. [25] A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. [26] Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. [27] For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. [28] In the recent case of Reyes v. Nieva , [29] this Court had the occasion to clarify that the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. [30] It has been consistently defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [31] In Narag v. Narag , [32] the Court held that: [T]he burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. In evaluating the respective versions of the parties, the IBP-CBD tend to give more credence to the allegations of respondent. The Court, however, is not, at all, convinced as regards his exoneration in the light of the undisputed factual setting which tends to dwell on his fitness as a member of the Bar. On the contrary, the evidence presented by the complainant has sufficiently and convincingly established respondent's culpability for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. It is undeniable that respondent participated in the auction sale of the property for the purpose of protecting his gravel and sand business and that after he lost in the bidding, he represented himself as the representative of the owner authorized to redeem the subject lot despite the absence of a written authority. To further show his willful and deliberate interest in the property, he promised to submit the authority during his meeting with the complainant, but failed to do so. It was later on discovered that respondent was never authorized to exercise the righ