Case Digest: A.C. No. 12876 [Formerly CBD Case No. 1 -4823], Promulgated: January 12, 2021

PETER LANCE DILLON, Complainant, – versus – ATTY. NAPOLEON C. DE QUIROZ

Law: Legal Ethics

Cited Law/Order: Code of Professional Responsibility

Issue: Disbarment Case

FACTS:

Complainant engaged the services of the respondent to represent him in a criminal case for Falsification of a Public Document. Complainant made an initial payment but counsel fails to issue receipt from the money received.

Respondent committed several lapses in handling the case. Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate to the complainant regarding the status of the case.

The complainant lost in the criminal case he filed.

Complainant filed the present case against the respondent for gross incompetence and extreme negligence.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not burden of proof in proving administrative liability lies to the complainant

2. Whether or not allegations be part of evidence

3. Whether or not charges based from suspicion and speculations be given credence

4. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for signing the Judicial Affidavit for and in behalf of his client without an authority to do so.

5. Whether or not threatening the counsel, judge and prosecutor involved in this case recognizes the court’s concern

RULING:

1. Yes, the complainant has the burden of proving by substanfal evidence the allegations in his complaint.

2. No. Allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.

3. No. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

4. No. The complainant authorized through an SPA the respondent. The SPA was attached in the position paper made by the respondent. From the SPA, the respondent was authorized to sign in behalf of the complainant.

5. Yes. To quote the complainant, he explicitly said that: “I am going to blacken names and reputations. What have I got to lose?” The explicit display of this conduct only means that he will come after those who are involved in his case which is very alarming. He simply cannot accept that he lost a case and as a result he will go a long way to blacken the names and reputation of those that are involved.

Lesson for this case:

Reconciliation and acceptance of an outcome in a judicial case is important. Justice is the strength in the Judiciary department.

As long as there is an SPA, every act of the Attorney-in-Fact, is correct, as long as it followed to the provisions in the SPA. Follow what the SPA has been expressed.

The quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case is Substantial Evidence.

Full text of the case: https://juanbatas.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/ac_12876_2021-1.pdf

Cited Jurisprudence:

Cabas v. Atty. Sususco, et al.