8/12/2019 Case on Disbarment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-on-disbarment 1/3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 3037 May 20, 2004

TRIFONIA J. GAVIOLA, complainant,

vs.

ATTY. ERASTO D. SALCEDO, responent.

R!SO"#TION

CORONA,  J .:

This is a complaint for isbarment file b$ Trifonia %. &aviola a'ainst responent (tt$. !rasto D.Salceo for 'ross misconuct an eceit.

In her complaint, &aviola alle'e that responent )as one of the partners of the la) firm )hichassiste her )hen a controvers$ arose bet)een her an Minanao School of (rts an Traes

*MS(T+, no) Don Mariano Marcos Memorial Pol$technic State olle'e *DMMMPS+, in

connection )ith her possession of a -,/0 s1uare meter lot *"ot No. 023 45+ locate at

"apasan, a'a$an e Oro it$.

6or le'al services renere, complainant conve$e portions of "ot No. 023 45 to the partners

of the firm, as follo)s7 8,999 s1uare meters to (tt$. (beto Salceo, 0,999 s1uare meters to (tt$.

!milie Salceo54abarin an -,999 s1uare meters to responent (tt$. !rasto Salceo.

(fter (tt$. (beto Salceo:s eath on October 8, ;<3, responent alle'el$ starte harassin'an intimiatin' complainant, as=in' for an aitional portion of "ot 023 45. He supposel$

claime that he )as unfairl$ treate for havin' been pai less than )hat (tt$. (beto Salceo an

(tt$. !milie Salceo>4abarin 'ot.

omplainant further alle'e that responent insti'ate, for a consieration, one 4ernaraSabanal to file a case a'ainst her an provo=e some 39 s1uatters to forcibl$ enter an settle on

her propert$ on the prete?t that it )as public lan open to an$ occupant. Hence, this complaint

a'ainst responent.

Responent vehementl$ enie all the char'es a'ainst him. He alle'e that this )as not aconflict bet)een him an complainant but bet)een him an his niece, (tt$. !milie Salceo5

4abarin, )ho alle'el$ maneuvere complainant into filin' this case a'ainst him because of

 professional @ealous$ an a famil$ feu.

8/12/2019 Case on Disbarment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-on-disbarment 2/3

In a resolution ate 6ebruar$ -2, ;;, the ourt referre the case to the ommission on 4ar

Discipline of the Inte'rate 4ar of the Philippines *I4P+ for investi'ation, report an

recommenation.

Mean)hile, on (u'ust 3, ;;0, before the case coul be hear b$ the I4P, complainant an

responent file their @oint motion to ismiss, )ith complainant:s verifie affiavit of esistanceattache, statin' that the case ha lon' been settle an that the criminal case a'ainst responent

for violation of PD 22- *(nti5s1uattin' "a)+ ha also been ismisse b$ the fiscal:s office )a$ bac= in ;</. 4oth parties apolo'iAe to the ourt for failin' to immeiatel$ notif$ it of the

settlement.

On %une ;, ;;;, the I4P 4oar of &overnors passe

Resolution No. BIII5;;5// aoptin' an approvin' the report an recommenation ofInvesti'atin' ommissioner "$ia (. Navarro )ho recommene the ismissal of the sai case7

(fter 'oin' over the recors of this case, the unersi'ne note that on (u'ust -, ;;0the parties file a %oint Motion to Dismiss statin' therein that the case ha lon' been

settle in ;</ )hen the$ have alrea$ reconcile an the complaint arose from a lanispute )hich i not involve ishonest$ an moral turpitue.

The parties attache to their %oint Motion to Dismiss a ul$ verifie (ffiavit of

Desistance e?ecute b$ the complainant Trifonia &aviola to the effect that she is no

lon'er intereste in pursuin' the case she file a'ainst the responent )hich )as merel$ue to an outburst of emotion cause b$ intri'ues an pett$ bic=erin's )hich )as irone

out urin' their famil$ meetin' bein' famil$ friens. It )as onl$ unfortunate that the$

faile to notif$ the Supreme ourt in ;</ of an (ffiavit of Desistance e?ecute then

for the criminal an aministrative case No. 0902 an she )as not coerce into e?ecutin'this (ffiavit of Desistance.

"i=e)ise (tt$. (rturo . #baub issue a certification on (u'ust -, ;;0 that the I4P

Misamis Oriental hapter has not receive an$ aministrative complaint a'ainst I4Pmember, (tt$. !rasto D. Salceo since the$ assume Office as its officers since ;;0.

(fter 'oin' over the recors of this case an consierin' the lapse of time since the

 parties ecie to bur$ their hatchets, the unersi'ne has no alternative but to

respectfull$ recommen in the spirit of human compassion to ismiss the case )ith pre@uice.

The recommenation is hereb$ approve.

omplainant, instea of provin' her affirmative alle'ations, e?ecute an affiavit of esistance

statin' that she )as no lon'er intereste in pushin' throu'h )ith her complaint a'ainstresponent an that the same )as merel$ ue to an outburst of emotion, intri'ue an pett$

 bic=erin'. She state that she ha alrea$ settle her ifferences )ith responent.

8/12/2019 Case on Disbarment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-on-disbarment 3/3

The ourt has hel in a number of instances that the filin' of an affiavit of esistance b$ the

complainant for lac= of interest oes not ipso facto result in the termination of an aministrative

case for suspension or isbarment of an errin' la)$er. Ho)ever, it is also )ell5settle that, inisbarment proceein's, the buren of proof rests on the complainant. In Martin vs. Felix,- )e

hel7

Si'nificantl$, this ourt has, time an a'ain, eclare a conservative an cautious

approach to isbarment proceein's li=e the instant case.

Thus, in Santos vs. Dichoso *(m. ase No. <-3C <8 SR( /--+ an reiterate in Norie'a vs.

Sison *(m. ase No. --//C -3 SR( -;0+ this court rule7

In isbarment proceein's, the buren of proof rests upon the complainant, an for the

court to e?ercise its isciplinar$ po)ers, the case a'ainst the responent must beestablishe b$ clear, convincin' an satisfactor$ proof. Inee, consierin' the serious

conse1uences of the isbarment or suspension of a member of the 4ar, the Supreme

ourt has consistentl$ hel that clearl$ preponerant evience is necessar$ to @ustif$ theimposition of the aministrative penalt$.

('ain, in Santos vs. Dichoso *(m. ase No. <-3C <8 SR( /--+ this ourt efine the e'ree

of proof necessar$ to isbar a la)$er. This ourt hel7

The profession of an attorne$ is ac1uire after lon' an laborious stu$. It is a lifetime

 profession. 4$ $ears of patience, Aeal an abilit$, the attorne$ ma$ be able to amassconsierable means to support himself an his famil$, besies the honor an presti'e that

accompan$ his office an profession. To eprive him of such honore station in life

)hich )oul result in irreparable in@ur$ must re1uire proof of the hi'hest e'ree, )hich

Ee fin no)here here. Ehile courts )ill not hesitate to mete out proper isciplinar$ punishment upon la)$ers )ho fail to live up to their s)orn uties the$ )ill, on the other

han, protect them from the un@ust accusations of issatisfie liti'ants. The success of ala)$er in his profession epens almost entirel$ on his reputation. (n$thin' )hich )ill

harm his 'oo name is to be eplore. Private persons, an particularl$ is'runtle

opponents, ma$ not, therefore, be permitte to use the courts as vehicles throu'h )hich to

vent their rancor on members of the 4ar.

onsierin' the fore'oin', )e are constraine to ismiss the char'es a'ainst responent

inasmuch as such char'es cannot be proven )ithout the evience of the complainant an her

)itnesses.

!EREFORE, the resolution of the 4oar of &overnors of the I4P approvin' an aoptin' thereport an recommenation of the Investi'atin' ommissioner is hereb$ AFFIRMED an the

complaint a'ainst responent DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.