A.C. No. 11495 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5466) - NORMA F. FLORES AND MARK SHERWIN F. FLORES, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS.

Ruling

Accordingly, the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board are in order. At the incipience, Atty. Delos Santos' failure to comply with the Notice [21] dated November 16, 2016, of this Court, which required him to comment on the Complaint, lends credence to the averments therein and manifests his tacit admission of the same. [22] Quite tellingly, in his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, [23] Atty. Delos Santos did not even provide any justifiable reason for his prolonged silence and refusal to comply with the orders of this Court as well as the IBP. As aptly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, his "obstinate snobbery to comply with these orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character, [but] also underscores his disrespect of lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof." [24] Anent the merits of the Complaint, the Court finds that the serious allegations of gross misconduct against Atty. Delos Santos were sufficiently established. Gross misconduct is defined as 'improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment." [25] As officers of the court, lawyers are called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They are vanguards of the legal system who are tasked to protect and uphold the truth and the rule of law; and are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the court. [26] To this end, they must abstain from engaging in activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Thus, a lawyer must "remain a competent, honorable, and reliable individual in whom the public reposes confidence. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law." [27] For the Court to exercise its disciplinary power to punish members of the Bar for gross misconduct, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant who must establish with substantial evidence that the lawyer committed acts or omissions which reflect his or her unfitness for the legal profession. Substantial evidence is defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." [28] A review of the evidence on record shows that the required degree of proof has been established by complainants. Norma's affidavit, coupled with the bank deposit slips she submitted, amply support her allegation that she deposited various sums amounting to P160,000.00 in the savings account of Atty. Delos Santos' wife, Reinalyn. [29] Nonetheless, in his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, [30] Atty. Delos Santos emphatically denied Norma's allegation that he prevailed upon her to deposit the said amount for the purpose of bribing the Justices of the Court of Appeals. Contrarily, he asserted that the amount covered the payment of his attorn