EDGAR M. RICO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. REYNALDO G. SALUTAN, RESPONDENT.

Rico versus Salutan

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action filed by Edgar M. Rico against Atty. Reynaldo G. Salutan, the counsel of an adverse party in a series of ejectment proceedings. Rico accused the lawyer of misleading the court and of contempt of court, arising from the lawyer's persistent efforts to secure and enforce writs of execution against him. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the burden and quantum of proof in lawyer discipline, and of the line between zealous advocacy, which is a virtue, and unprofessional conduct, which is disfavored.

Procedural History

The complaint began as a letter addressed to Judge Antonio P. Laolao, Sr., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 6, Davao City. It was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. On January 2, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. On March 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and approving that recommendation and dismissing the case. Rico moved for reconsideration. On March 23, 2014, the Board of Governors denied the motion and affirmed its earlier resolution. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which reviewed the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar and rendered its own decision.

Facts

Rico's relatives were plaintiffs in a civil case for Forcible Entry before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Davao City. The court ordered the defendants to restore possession of the subject properties to the plaintiffs, to remove all structures introduced on them, and to pay a reasonable sum for their occupation. Milagros Villa Abrille, one of the defendants in that case, then filed a separate case for Unlawful Detainer against Rico covering the same property. On November 6, 2001, the Municipal Trial Court ordered Rico to vacate the premises. The Regional Trial Court affirmed, and a Writ of Execution issued.

Enforcement repeatedly failed. On July 9, 2004, the sheriff returned the writ unserved because the property subject of the case was different from the lot Rico was actually occupying. Villa Abrille, through her counsel Atty. Salutan, moved for an Alias Writ of Execution. On May 15, 2007, the sheriff again returned the alias writ for the same reason. On April 4, 2008, Villa Abrille sought another alias writ, which the Municipal Trial Court denied. Villa Abrille then went to the Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel issuance and implementation of another writ, but the Court dismissed that case.

For the fourth time, Villa Abrille filed a motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution, and this time the Municipal Trial Court granted it. The sheriff issued a Final Notice to Vacate to Rico on June 10, 2010, and on June 15, 2010, the same sheriff led the demolition of the house and other improvements on the property. Rico then filed the administrative complaint against Atty. Salutan, who denied the charges and insisted that he had merely advocated his client's cause within the bounds of the law and the rules, as a zealous lawyer would.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Salutan misled the court, directly or indirectly, in the course of championing his client's cause, so as to warrant disciplinary action.
• Whether or not the administrative complaint against Atty. Salutan should be dismissed for failure of the complainant to discharge the burden of proof required in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court defines burden of proof:

The burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.

This fixes on Rico the duty to establish his charges against the lawyer by the required measure of evidence.

Rule 133 of the Rules of Court governs weight and sufficiency of evidence:

Weight and sufficiency of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends on its practical effect in inducing belief for the party on the judge trying the case.

This supports the Court's refusal to count allegations as proof and its insistence that the evidence be weighed by its practical effect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no badge of deception on the lawyer's part. No court decision had declared Villa Abrille's title fake or declared that it encroached on Rico's property. All that Atty. Salutan did was to zealously advocate for his client's cause; he was not shown to have misled or unduly influenced the court through misinformation. He persistently pursued that cause within the bounds of the law and the existing rules, and he succeeded in having the writ of execution implemented, albeit on the fourth attempt. The Court reminded the Bar that while zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal is always disfavored, but such conduct was not shown here.

On the second issue, the Court held that in administrative proceedings the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and that the case must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. The quantum of proof for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court stressed that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof, and that charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. Rico failed to discharge that burden. The Court also characterized disciplinary proceedings against lawyers as sui generis, meaning of their own kind: neither purely civil nor purely criminal, an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, with public interest as the primary objective.

Doctrine

• In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, that amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
• Mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof; charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.
• An attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence of the charges against him, and as an officer of the court is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath.
• Zealous advocacy within the bounds of the law and the rules is not misconduct; enthusiasm, or even excess of it, is a virtue if channelled in the right direction, though it must be circumscribed within the bounds of propriety.
• Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, neither purely civil nor purely criminal, and are intended not to inflict punishment but to determine whether the attorney remains a fit person to be allowed the privileges of the profession.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Reynaldo G. Salutan for utter lack of merit, and Rico lost.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in lawyer discipline the complainant must prove the charge by substantial evidence, and mere allegation is not proof. Examiners use this case to test the quantum of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings, and to distinguish zealous advocacy from deceptive practice.