A.C. No. 13163 - MARIA FELICISIMA GONZAGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDGARDO H. ABAD.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that Respondent ATTY. EDGARDO H. ABAD be DISBARRED and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [8] On February 2, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission's findings, thus: RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner imposing the penalty of DISBARMENT upon the Respondent Atty. Edgardo H. Abad, and that his name be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. [9] Atty. Abad sought reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the records of the case were transmitted to the Court. RULING At the outset, we clarify that a disbarment case does not involve a trial but only an investigation into the conduct of lawyers. The only issue is their fitness to continue in the practice of law. Hence, the findings have no material bearing on other judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative actions that the parties may choose to file against each other. [10] Specifically, a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action and other administrative cases filed against a lawyer. These cases may proceed independently of each other. [11] A conviction in the criminal case, or existence of probable cause, or guilt in quasi-judicial bodies does not necessarily mean a finding of liability in the disbarment case. [12] In the same way, the dismissal of a criminal case, lack of probable cause, or innocence in other quasi-judicial actions does not automatically exculpate the lawyer from administrative liability. The quantum of evidence is different. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary in criminal cases. [13] Only prima facie evidence of guilt and substantial evidence is required in preliminary investigation and other quasi-judicial proceedings, respectively. In an administrative case against a lawyer, substantial evidence is necessary or the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [14] More importantly, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. [15] The lawyer's presumption of innocence subsists absent contrary evidence. [16] Notably, Canon 1, [17] Rule 1.01 [18] and Canon 7, [19] Rule 7.03 [20] of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate all lawyers to possess good moral character at the time of their application for admission to the Bar, and require them to maintain such character until their retirement from the practice of law. [21] Also, members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients considering the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship. [22] Indeed, the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement for membership in the legal profession. [23] These proceeds from the