ChanRobles Virtual law Library

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 5 2003 .

A.C. No. 5159( Macario Abion vs. Atty. Beato A.C. dela Cruz III.)

*This is a petition filed by complainant assailing Resolution No. XV-2002-41 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, which dismissed the complaint against respondent for lack of merit. Complainant argues that respondent lawyer was guilty of negligence in failing to inform him of the dismissal of his complaint for disability benefits by the Voluntary Arbitrator. Moreover, he points out that the dismissal of the complaint was due to respondent lawyer's failure to present in evidence the Collective Bargaining Agreement between his employer, Osco Shipping Services, Inc., and the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), under which he was entitled to disability benefits of US$57,000.00.

After a deliberate review of the records, we find that the IBP-CBD Board of Governors did not err in dismissing the complaint. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove his charges against respondent attorney with convincing proof. ^[1] cralaw Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability. ^[2] cralaw In the case at bar, complainant failed to establish respondent's negligence and inefficiency with adequate proof.

Indeed, while it appears that respondent sought the production of the alleged CBA, AMOSUP countered that complainant, who was employed on October 19, 1991, was not covered by the said agreement which covered the period February 15, 1989 to February 14, 1990 only. More importantly, the dismissal of the complaint for disability benefits was based on grounds other than the non-production of the said CBA.

While the Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties, it will, on the other hand, protect them from unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants. Private persons and particularly disgruntled opponents may not, therefore, be permitted to use the Court as a vehicle to vent their rancor on members of the Bar. ^[3] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court further Resolves to NOTE:

(a)����� the First Indorsement dated March 15, 2002 of the Office of the Chief Justice referring the letter dated March 15, 2002 of complainant Macario Abion requesting for the early resolution of the instant case;

(b)����� the motion dated April 4, 2002 of complainant for an extension of fifteen (15) days from April 4, 2002 within which to file a motion for reconsideration [not petition] of the resolution of January 20, 2002 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which dismissed the instant complaint against respondent;

(c)����� the petition dated April 18, 2002 filed by Macario Abion seeking to nullify Resolution No. XV-2002-41 of the IBP Board of Governors dated January 26, 2002 which dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; and

(d)����� the position paper dated February 24, 2003 of complainant praying that respondent be meted out the appropriate penalty provided for by law.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court