Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SIAO ABA v. ATTYS. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 6056 2015-09-09	FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA v. ATTYS. JUAN B. MENDOZA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.[26] For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[27]
	AC. No. 10558 2015-02-23	MICHAEL RUBY v. ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO REYES, J.
As regards the complainant's charge of gross neglect against Atty. Bayot, the Court finds the same unsubstantiated. The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint.[33]
	AC. No. 10573 2015-01-13	FERNANDO W. CHU v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO PER CURIAM
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish respondent attorney's liability by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Indeed, this Court has consistently required clearly preponderant evidence to justify the imposition of either disbarment or suspension as penalty.[18]
	AC. No. 10031 2014-07-23	RAUL M. FRANCIA v. ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABDON REYES, J.
In Aba v. De Guzman, Jr.,[27] the Court reiterated that a preponderance of evidence is necessary before a lawyer maybe held administratively liable, to wit: Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.
	AC. No. 3452 2014-06-23	HENRY SAMONTE v. ATTY. GINES ABELLANA BERSAMIN, J.
The contention of Atty. Abellana is bereft of substance. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, clearly preponderant evidence is required to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent lawyers. Preponderant evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.[45] In order to determine if the evidence of one party is greater than that of the other, Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court instructs that the court may consider the following, namely: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
	AC. No. 6490 2013-07-09	LILIA TABANG v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT PER CURIAM
Moreover, considering the gravity of disbarment, it has been established that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify its imposition.[34]
	Adm. Case No. 6475 2013-01-30	FE A. YLAYA v. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT BRION, J.
Under Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, in determining whether preponderance of evidence exists, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, and the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.[50] By law, a lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proven, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath.[51]
	AC. No. 9259 2012-08-23	JASPER JUNNO F. RODICA v. ATTY. MANUEL 'LOLONG' M. LAZARO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Siao v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr.,[18] this Court reiterated its oft repeated ruling that in suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence. Elaborating on the required quantum of proof, this Court declared thus: 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. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number. (Citations omitted.)
	AC. No. 6622 2012-07-10	MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS PER CURIAM
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.[54] In this case, complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two marriages while the latter's first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a negative pregnant. He did not dispute the authenticity of the NSO documents, but denied that he contracted those two other marriages. He submitted copies of the two Petitions he had filed separately with the RTC of Laguna one in Biñan and the other in Calamba to declare the second and the third Marriage Contracts null and void.[55]