A.C. No. 5225; April 29, 2003
SPOUSES WILFREDO BOYBOY and LYDIA BOYBOY, complainants, vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR., respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, spouses Wilfredo and Lydia Boyboy, filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr., accusing him of blackmail and extortion. They alleged that in November 1999, respondent called Dr. Lydia Boyboy, threatening to file estafa charges and seek the revocation of her medical license unless she paid him P300,000.00. They further claimed that on December 7, 1999, respondent served an NBI subpoena related to an estafa case he had filed. The following day, during a meeting, respondent allegedly increased his demand to P400,000.00, claiming he could persuade the NBI Regional Director to dismiss the case for that sum.
Respondent denied all allegations, asserting the complaint was a retaliatory measure. He explained he represented a client, Ms. Arlene Sto. Tomas, who accused the complainants of being part of a syndicate that filed fictitious medical claims. In his capacity as counsel, he filed criminal and administrative cases against the Boyboy spouses. He contended that the disbarment complaint was merely an attempt to pressure him into withdrawing as counsel for Ms. Sto. Tomas.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr. should be held administratively liable for blackmail and extortion based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint. The Court emphasized the fundamental legal principle embodied in the maxim Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove). In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests squarely on the complainants to establish their charges by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
The Court found the evidence presented by the complainants grossly insufficient. Their allegations rested solely on their own self-serving affidavits and pleadings, without any corroborative testimonial or documentary proof. Notably, they failed to present NBI Director Atty. Cris Balancio to corroborate their story about the alleged demand and suggested entrapment. The Court deemed their excuse for not proceeding with the entrapment—”for lack of funds”—as flimsy and incredible, noting standard law enforcement techniques could have been employed without the full sum.
The records were barren of any competent evidence proving respondent’s culpability. Given the existence of a clear motive for the complainants to harass respondent due to the pending cases he filed against them, their unsubstantiated accusations could not prevail. To rule otherwise based on mere allegations would expose all lawyers to potential abuse through malicious and unproven claims. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to meet the requisite quantum of proof.