A.C. No. 9257 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3490) - EDGAR M. RICO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. REYNALDO G. SALUTAN.

Ruling

Accordingly, he recommends DISMISSAL of the same. [1] On March 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2013-357, [2] which adopted the abovementioned recommendation, thus: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the case is hereby DISMISSED . Thereafter, Rico moved for reconsideration of said Resolution. On March 23, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors passed another resolution, Resolution No. XXI-2014-183, [3] denying said motion for reconsideration and approving its 2013 Resolution, to wit: RESOLVED to DENY Complainant's 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. XX-2013-357 dated March 21, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED . The Court's Ruling The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and recommendation of the IBP that the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Salutan must be dismissed. In administrative 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. [4] Here, despite the charges hurled against Atty. Salutan, Rico failed to show any badge of deception on the lawyer's part. There was no court decision declaring that Villa Abrille's title was fake or that it had encroached on Rico's property. All that Atty. Salutan did was to zealously advocate for the cause of his client. He was not shown to have misled or unduly influenced the court through misinformation. He merely persistently pursued said cause and he did so within the bounds of the law and the existing rules. He succeeded at finally having the writ of execution, albeit at the fourth (4 th ) time, implemented. The Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. Burden of proof, on the other hand, is defined in Section 1 of Rule 131 as the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. [5] Weight and sufficiency of evidence, under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court,is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends on its practical effect in inducing belief for the party on the judge trying the case. [6] In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary