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$. !rasto D.
Salceo for 'ross misconuct an eceit.
In her complaint, &aviola alle'e that responent )as one of the partners of the la) firm )hich
assiste her )hen a controvers$ arose bet)een her an Minanao School of (rts an Traes
*MS(T+, no) Don Mariano Marcos Memorial Pol$technic State ,olle'e *DMMMPS,+, in
connection )ith her possession of a -.,./0 s1uare meter lot *"ot No. 02.3 45.+ locate at
"apasan, ,a'a$an e Oro ,it$.
6or le'al services renere, complainant conve$e portions of "ot No. 02.3 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 02.3 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 4ernara
Sabanal 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 a
conflict 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.
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 esistance
attache, 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 of
Investi'atin' ,ommissioner "$ia (. Navarro )ho recommene the ismissal of the sai case7
(fter 'oin' over the recors of this case, the unersi'ne note that on (u'ust .-, .;;0
the parties file a %oint Motion to Dismiss statin' therein that the case ha lon' been
settle in .;</ )hen the$ have alrea$ reconcile an the complaint arose from a lan
ispute )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 I4P
member, (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'ainst
responent 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.
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)$er.
.
Ho)ever, it is also )ell5settle that, in
isbarment proceein's, the buren of proof rests on the complainant. In Martin vs. Felix,
-
)e
hel7
Si'nificantl$, 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 S,R( /--+ an reiterate in Norie'a vs.
Sison *(m. ,ase No. --//C .-3 S,R( -;0+ this court rule7
DIn 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 be
establishe 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$ the
imposition of the aministrative penalt$.D
('ain, in Santos vs. Dichoso *(m. ,ase No. .<-3C <8 S,R( /--+ this ,ourt efine the e'ree
of proof necessar$ to isbar a la)$er. This ,ourt hel7
DThe profession of an attorne$ 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 amass
consierable 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 a
la)$er in his profession epens almost entirel$ 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.D
,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' the
report an recommenation of the Investi'atin' ,ommissioner is hereb$ AFFIRMED an the
complaint a'ainst responent DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.