AC 9268; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 9268, September 30, 2020
DeltaVenture Resources, Inc., Complainant, vs. Atty. Cagliostro Miguel Martinez, Respondent.
FACTS
The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed a graft case before the Office of the Ombudsman against its former officers and the officers of DeltaVenture Resources, Inc., including Roberto V. Ongpin. In a press conference, Atty. Zenaida Ongkiko-Acorda represented herself as DBP’s spokesperson on the matter. Ongpin publicly questioned her authority. Subsequently, DBP published a Secretary’s Certificate, signed by respondent Atty. Cagliostro Miguel Martinez as DBP’s OIC-Corporate Secretary, certifying that the DBP Board had passed a resolution designating Atty. Ongkiko-Acorda as its official spokesperson.
DeltaVenture, through Ongpin, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Martinez. It alleged the Secretary’s Certificate was untruthful, arguing it was improbable for the Board to have passed a separate resolution on the same day for the spokesperson designation. DeltaVenture claimed the certificate was a contrived afterthought to legitimize Atty. Ongkiko-Acorda’s earlier unauthorized representations, thus violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Cagliostro Miguel Martinez should be administratively disciplined for issuing an allegedly false Secretary’s Certificate.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for utter lack of merit. The Court found that DeltaVenture failed to discharge its burden of proving by substantial evidence that Atty. Martinez knowingly made an untruthful statement in the certificate. The mere improbability theorized by the complainant, without concrete proof, does not equate to falsity. The Court upheld the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, which noted that the respondent merely performed a ministerial duty in certifying a corporate act based on the board secretary’s draft minutes.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the evidence must be clear, convincing, and preponderant. The Court emphasized that administrative proceedings against lawyers are not substitutes for remedies available in other forums and are not meant to be used as tools for harassment. The complaint’s timing and context, arising from a contentious case where DBP was the complainant against DeltaVenture’s officers, suggested an ulterior motive to harass the respondent lawyer. Absent clear proof of deceit or malpractice, the Court will shield lawyers from frivolous complaints to preserve the integrity of the legal profession.