Case Title: SIAO ABA, MIKO LUMABAO, ALMASIS LAUBAN, and BENJAMIN DANDA, Complainants, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, JR., ATTY. WENCESLAO “PEEWEE” TRINIDAD, and ATTY. ANDRESITO FORNIER, Respondents.
FACTS
Complainants Siao Aba, Miko Lumabao, Almasis Lauban, and Benjamin Danda filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Salvador De Guzman, Jr., Atty. Wenceslao “Peewee” Trinidad, and Atty. Andresito Fornier. Complainants alleged that in January 2006, retired Judge De Guzman persuaded them to file a fabricated illegal recruitment case (I.S. No. 2006-C-31) in Cotabato City against certain persons in exchange for money, representing that his group, including Mayor Trinidad, Atty. Fornier, and the Go Tian brothers, were “untouchable.” Complainants claimed they received a prepared Joint Complaint-Affidavit from De Guzman to sign. When they later expressed a desire to withdraw the complaint due to conscience, respondents allegedly offered them ₱200,000 and then ₱1,000,000 to continue. Upon their refusal, respondents allegedly orchestrated the filing of fabricated criminal complaints for syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa (I.S. No. 06-1676 and I.S. No. 06-1835) against complainants in Iligan City. Aba also claimed to have received a threatening text message from De Guzman about an arrest warrant. Complainants later filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against Atty. Trinidad and Atty. Fornier, praying it be pursued only against De Guzman.
Respondent Atty. Trinidad, in his Comment and Position Paper, denied all allegations, stating he never communicated with complainants or went to Cotabato. He claimed the complaint was a fabricated, politically motivated charge spearheaded by a certain Joseph Montesclaros, who sought revenge after Trinidad, as Pasay City Mayor, allegedly ordered a raid on Montesclaros’s gambling den. Trinidad asserted he and his associates were victims of a syndicate led by Montesclaros that files fabricated illegal recruitment complaints in remote areas using fake addresses to secure arrest warrants and then extort money from the defendants. He presented supporting documents, including a letter from a law student and a court decision dismissing a similar case against a friend.
Respondent Atty. Fornier, in his Comment and Position Paper, also denied knowing or dealing with complainants. He claimed he was included in the case because he acted as defense counsel for the Go Tian brothers, whom he described as victims of an extortion racket led by Montesclaros. Fornier asserted that by defending the Go Tian brothers, he thwarted the syndicate’s plans, and the administrative complaint was an attempt to retaliate against him. He argued that complainants’ allegations were based on hearsay and lacked clear, convincing proof.
Respondent Atty. De Guzman filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint instead of a Comment, arguing that the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Affidavit of Complaint attached to the administrative complaint were spurious. He presented a Certification from the Iligan City Prosecutor’s Office stating that complainants Lauban, Lumabao, and Aba, who were charged (and later cleared) under Republic Act No. 8042, did not submit any Joint Counter-Affidavit or Affidavit of Complaint in that case. In his Position Paper, the 81-year-old retired judge denied the allegations and pointed to his previously submitted Affidavit of Clarification in I.S. No. 2006-C-31 to deny participation in preparing the criminal complaint.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Atty. Salvador De Guzman, Jr., Atty. Wenceslao Trinidad, and Atty. Andresito Fornier should be held administratively liable for the acts alleged by the complainants, warranting the penalty of disbarment.
RULING
The Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit.
The burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests on the complainant, and the evidence must be clear, convincing, and free from doubt. The Court found that complainants failed to substantiate their serious allegations with the required quantum of proof. Their evidence consisted largely of unsubstantiated allegations. Crucially, the Certification from the Iligan City Prosecutor’s Office directly contradicted a foundational element of their complaint by stating that three of the complainants did not file the Joint Counter-Affidavit they attached to their administrative pleading. This discrepancy severely undermined their credibility.
Furthermore, the Court noted that complainants themselves moved to dismiss the case against Atty. Trinidad and Atty. Fornier, which weakened the case against all respondents. The defenses raised by the respondents-including the claim of being targeted by a syndicate engaged in filing fabricated cases for extortion-presented a plausible alternative narrative that cast doubt on the complainants’ motives. Given the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence that lawyers enjoy in administrative cases, the Court could not hold the respondents administratively liable. The complaint was therefore dismissed.
