This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Atty. Gonzales-Alzate's legal representation of Turqueza neither resulted in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, Jr. as his former attorney, nor invited the suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing while she was performing her duties as an attorney.[39] Representing conflicting interests would occur only where the attorney's new engagement would require her to use against a former client any confidential information gained from the previous professional relation.[40] The prohibition did not cover a situation where the subject matter of the present engagement was totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the attorney.[41] To constitute the violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally use against the former client the confidential information acquired by her during the previous employment.[42] But a mere allegation of professional misconduct would not suffice to establish the charge, because accusation was not synonymous with guilt.[43] | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers.[37] The respondent generally is under no obligation to prove his/her defense,[38] until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case has in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense.[39] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Complainant's bare allegation that respondent made use and took advantage of his position as a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him, deserves no credit. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and she must establish the case against the respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof,[28] disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power.[29] Thus, the adage that "he who asserts not he who denies, must prove."[30] As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations-ei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probation nulla sit.[31] In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof required of her. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.[32] | |||||
|
2006-07-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required to establish liability is not reasonable doubt but only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[9] We hold that complainant has sufficiently discharged the burden. | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons.[20] The burden of proof rests on the complainant and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[21] Thus, the adage that "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[22] | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| While it is true that the complaint and the supplemental complaint were verified, we must emphasize that they are insufficient proof of the charges. Accusation is not synonymous to guilt.[38] This is especially so in this case since complainant's allegations of bad faith and corruption are mainly speculative. | |||||