A.C. No. 14013 - JYQ HOLDINGS & MGT. CORP. REPRESENTED BY CARLOS M. AMBROSIO III, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ZAFIRO T. LAURON.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board RESOLVED to GRANT, as it is hereby GRANTED, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Zafiro T. Lauron, and to REVERSE the Board of Governor's Resolution[,] dated May 8, 2021, and to recommend instead the DISMISSAL of the complaint against the Respondent. Respectfully submitted. [36] (Emphasis in the original) The Issue Whether Atty. Lauron should be administratively sanctioned, even disbarred, for the acts complained of in JYQ's Complaint. The Ruling of the Court After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds it proper to adopt the findings in the IBP Report and First IBP BOG Resolution, with a modification as to the appropriate penalty, taking into account that Atty. Lauron is also administratively liable for failing to return JYQ's funds upon demand. Nonetheless, the Court absolves Atty. Lauron of any other liability under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) . Preliminarily, the violations imputed against Atty. Lauron were committed well before the CPRA took effect on May 29, 2023. [37] Nevertheless, the CPRA's transitory provision expressly allows for its retroactive application: SEC. 1. Transitory Provision. The CPRA shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. Since the language and import of Canons 16, 17, and 18 of the CPR were incorporated into the CPRA, there is no doubt about the latter's applicability in this case. Atty. Lauron cannot be held administratively liable for not effecting the eviction of the informal settlers on the Subject Lot In Tan vs. Atty. Alvarico , [38] the Court explained that a lawyer enjoys the legal presumption of innocence when a disbarment complaint is filed against them until the contrary is proven with substantial evidence: An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he [or she] is innocent of the charges against him [or her] until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the Court, he [or she] is presumed to have performed his [or her] duties in accordance with his [or her] oath. In disbarment proceedings, the quantum of proof is substantial evidence and the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish the allegations in his [or her] complaint. Substantial evidence is defined under [Rule 133, Section 6] of the 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence35 as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion," while burden of proof is defined under [Rule 131, Section 1] as "the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law." The basic rule is that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures [,] and suppositions will leave an admin