Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [A.C. No. 7295 : March 15, 2010] IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO V. ATTY. RODRIGO A. REYNA:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 15 March 2010

A.C. No. 7295 - IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. ATTY. RODRIGO A. REYNA

The present Petition for Review^[1] filed by Iris Kristine Balois Alberto challenges Resolution No. XVII-2006-329 dated May 26, 2006 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors which adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) dismissing the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyna (respondent), on the ground that it was "unsubstantiated and has no legal anchor to lean [on]".

As reflected in the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Salvador Hababag of the CBD, the following are the circumstances which surrounded the filing of the disbarment case against respondent:

This disbarment suit is intertwined with series of criminal cases filed by herein complainant against respondent and two (2) others. The principal characters of the real life soap melodrama are complainant, a pretty lass of 20 years old and her alleged boyfriend an equally youthful Gil Anthony Calianga, his father Arturo Calianga and his uncle, herein respondent Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyna.

The first case lodged thru her grandfather Benjamin Balois (I.S. No. 02-G-03020-22) for rape, serious illegal detention and child abuse was filed at the City Prosecutor's Office of Muntinlupa City. Complainant avers that Gil Anthony Calianga raped her on two (2) occasions, December 28, 2001 and April 23, 2002. The complaint was dismissed in a Resolution (Annex "I" of the Answer) dated July 9, 2003 by Pros. Lilian Doris S. Alejo[.]

x x x x

Unsatisfied, complainant filed again[,] thru her grandfather[,] complaint for kidnapping, serious illegal detention, grave coercion and obstruction of justice before the City Prosecutor's Office of Makati as I.S. No. 03-G-14072-75. In that case^[3] complainant executed an affidavit dated August 23, 2003 denying all the charges in the Muntinlupa and Makati cases, on top of that August 13, 2003[,] Iris and Gil appeared in the GMA FrontPage program under the news banner "Magkasintahan Pala."

So much so that in a Resolution dated March 5, 2004 (Annex 2 of the Answer)[,] the Makati City Prosecutor's Office dismissed the case[.]

x x x x

Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the kidnapping, serious illegal detention , grave coercion case and obstruction of justice was likewise dismissed in a Resolution dated July 30, 2004 (Annex 3 [of the] Answer) by the Prosecutor's Office of Makati[.]

xxxx

In another case filed by complainant, the Task Force on Women and Children Protection, through State Prosecutor Zenaida M. Lim dismissed her [F]orcible Abduction with Rape and Violation of P.D. 1829 in a Resolution dated November 8, 2004 (Annex 4 [of the] Answer)[.]^[2] (underscoring supplied)

Commissioner Hababag gave his evaluation as follows:

All told, this is a typical modern day Romeo and Juliet love story with the main characters being herein complainant and love interests Gil Anthony Calianga, one of the respondents in the delude of criminal cases hurled by her thru her grandfather Benjamin O. Balois. The charges against respondent lawyer miserably failed for. they were either unproven, surmises and conjectures. The only matter that can link respondent is that he happens to be the uncle of Gil Anthony Calianga.^[3] (underscoring supplied)

In her present Petition, complainant contends that Commissioner Hababag's Report cum Recommendation was based solely on previous resolutions of the investigating prosecutors in the criminal cases she filed, without conducting his own independent investigation of the complaint.^[4]

As did the IBP Board of Governors, the Court finds the IBP Commissioner's evaluation and recommendation well taken.

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant. The Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.^[5]

As correctly found by Commissioner Hababag, the present case is "intertwined" with the series of criminal cases which complainant filed. Understandably, the Investigating Commissioner cited the prior findings of fact of the prosecutors' offices not only because they were in the best position to appreciate the candor of the witnesses, but also because in the series of criminal cases filed by complainant, it is the credence given to her testimony that would substantiate that a crime took place, that respondent committed it, and that in doing so he correspondingly committed grave misconduct meriting his disbarment.

There was thus nothing improper for the Investigating Commissioner to give credence to the findings of the prosecutors' offices.

While the Court will not shirk from its responsibility to mete out proper disciplinary punishment to lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to those the accusation against whom is not indubitably proven,^[6] as in the present case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchila Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Members, First Division, this 15^th day of March 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1088-1111.

^[2] Id. at 1084-1086.

^[3] Id. at 1086.

^[4] Id. at 1099.

^[5] Re: Letter-Complaint of Concerned Citizens against Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera, Atty- Rolando Faller, and Atty. Santiago Varela, A.M. No. 07-11-13-SC, June 30 2008 556 SCRA 522, 529.

^[6] Ibid.