G.R. No. A.C. No. 10994. June 10, 2019.
ELISA ZARA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTE JOYAS, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elisa Zara contracted the legal services of respondent Atty. Vicente Joyas on May 2, 2012, for the recognition and execution of a foreign divorce judgment procured by her husband in the United States. Complainant alleged that Atty. Joyas failed in his duty by not informing her of the case requirements, particularly the importance of her husband’s citizenship at the time the divorce decree was secured. She claimed that despite her efforts to communicate with him from Thailand, Atty. Joyas did not provide updates on her case. Atty. Joyas defended himself by stating the delay was beyond his control, as he had complied with his duties and exerted efforts for a favorable outcome. He explained that the court required the naturalization date of the husband, citing the case of Republic v. Orbecido III, and that without submitting the naturalization paper, the petition would be denied. He presented evidence of his efforts, including a December 15, 2014 letter to the husband, Edilberto Zara, seeking permission to obtain his naturalization papers from the U.S. Embassy, and an Acknowledgment Letter dated April 30, 2016. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding complainant’s allegations improbable given respondent’s documented efforts. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Vicente Joyas is administratively liable for negligence and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility in handling complainant’s case.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Atty. Vicente Joyas for lack of merit. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence, which must be clear, convincing, and satisfactory. The Court found that complainant Elisa Zara failed to present sufficient and concrete evidence to substantiate her accusations against Atty. Joyas. Conversely, Atty. Joyas successfully refuted the allegations by showing proof of his efforts in handling the petition, such as correspondence with the U.S. Embassy and the husband, demonstrating he was not remiss in his duties. Lawyers are presumed innocent of charges and to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath until proven otherwise. Since the presumption was not overcome by convincing proof of misconduct, no disciplinary action was warranted. The Court resolved to adopt the IBP’s recommendation and consider the case closed and terminated.