A.C. No. 7824 - ELIEZER F. CASTRO AND BETHULIA C. CASAFRANCISCO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOHN BIGAY, JR. AND ATTY. JUAN SIAPNO, JR..DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that respondent John L. Bigay, Jr. be SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the active practice of law. For respondent Juan C. Siapno, Jr., he is WARNED to be extra careful with his notarial paraphernalia. [11] The IBP Board of Governors Resolutions On February 13, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2013-131, [12] which reads: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification , 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 for using a falsified Deed of Sale and benefiting (sic), Atty. John L. Bigay, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months and Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby WARNED to be circumspect in his notarial transaction. (Emphasis supplied) Atty. Bigay's Motion for Reconsideration [13] was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XXI-2014-187 [14] dated March 23, 2014, thus: RESOLVED to DENY Respondent'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- 2013-131 dated February 13, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED . [15] Having a final say on the matter of disciplining members of the bar, We now resolve the instant complaint. Issue Should the respondents be held administratively liable based on the allegations in the pleadings of all parties on record? Our Ruling It is well to remember that in disbarment 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. [16] It is settled that considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar. [17] Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. [18] In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him must be dismissed. [19] The IBP-CBD found Atty. Bigay guilty of forging the subject deeds of sale and using the same for his benefit, hence, it recommended the latter's suspension from the practice of law for six months. Atty. Siapno, on the other hand, was merely warned to be extra careful with his notarial paraphernalia, the IBP-CBD relying on the latter