A.C. No. 12125 - CELIANA B. BUNTAG, FLORA ARBILERA, VETALIANO BONGO, SEBASTIAN BONGO, PETRONILO BONGO, LEO BONGO, AND RAUL IMAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. WILFREDO S. TOLEDO.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the Complaint against Atty. Toledo be dismissed for lack of evidence. Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that Atty. Toledo had the duty to file the Notice of Appeal on behalf of Complainants despite the Notice for his discharge, and as such, cannot be directed to explain said action. [52] The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not respondent Atty. Wilfredo S. Toledo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Complaint must be dismissed. It is well-established that the allegations in a disbarment complaint must be proven with substantial evidence. [53] Spouses Boyboy v. Atty. Yabut, Jr. [54] defines the standard of substantial evidence for an administrative complaint: 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. [55] (Citations omitted) Here, complainants failed to present any evidence to adequately support their allegations against respondent. They failed to state how much he supposedly demanded from them. They also did not attach receipts of the payment they had sent him to support their claim of unreasonable demand of money. Receipts from financial institutions could have supported their allegations that the unreasonable demand of money caused them to borrow money with high interest rates. Complainants alleged that they were forced to sign documents without understanding their contents. These documents should have been annexed to their Complaint to show this Court what these were. If they were forced to lie during hearings and cross-examinations, the stenographic notes would have shown the statements they wanted to dispute. As Commissioner Andres observed: Complainants accuse Respondent of directing them to tell lies which caused them to be bewildered when they were being cross-examined. They offered no evidence to prove this accusation other than their Affidavit Complaint. In their Affidavit Complaint, they did not indicate in which case they were told to lie and what lies they were made to tell. The Respondent on the other hand denies this accusation and alleges that it was the other way around. According to Respondent, this allegation pertains to a Forcible Entry and Damages case filed by the Complainants against a certain Paz Mandin-Trotin where it turned out during the hearing that Celiana Bongo-Buntag, one of the Comp