AC 1734; (January, 1984) (Digest)
A.C. No. 1734, January 31, 1984
Josefina M. Senseng, Complainant, vs. Patricio Balao Ga, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Josefina M. Senseng, Vice President and Manager of Casiguran Bay Timber Corporation, sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Patricio Balao Ga. She alleged that she hired the respondent to defend the corporation in a labor case. Despite full payment of his fees and representation expenses, she charged him with gross neglect of duty. Specifically, she accused him of consistently failing to attend hearings and demonstrating ignorance of procedural law by not knowing that Sundays and holidays are included in computing the period to appeal an adverse decision to the National Labor Relations Commission. This alleged negligence purportedly resulted in the corporation being compelled to pay the labor complainant the sum of P100,328.00.
The respondent denied all charges. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. During the investigation, after the initial hearing, the complainant and her counsel failed to appear at subsequent scheduled hearings. Consequently, the respondent was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on her direct testimony. Furthermore, there was no formal offer of the complainant’s evidence for the record.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to warrant the disbarment or disciplinary action against the respondent for gross negligence and incompetence.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Solicitor General. The legal logic rests on fundamental procedural rules governing the presentation and evaluation of evidence. Under Section 35, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court cannot consider any evidence that has not been formally offered. In this case, the complainant’s evidence was never formally offered for the court’s consideration due to her non-appearance at subsequent hearings.
Moreover, the failure of the complainant to proceed allowed the respondent no opportunity to cross-examine her, which is a critical right in adversarial proceedings to test the veracity and credibility of allegations. Even if the substance of the complainant’s initial, un-offered testimony were to be considered, the Solicitor General found it inadequate to establish the charges of gross neglect and incompetence. The burden of proof in disbarment cases rests on the complainant, and the evidence must be clear, convincing, and free from doubt. Here, the complainant failed to discharge this heavy burden. The Court found the Solicitor General’s recommendation well-taken and accordingly dismissed the complaint.