G.R. No. 7547; September 4, 2009
Gregory U. Chan, Complainant, vs. NLRC Commissioner Romeo L. Go and Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Gregory U. Chan, a respondent in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), sought the disbarment of respondents NLRC Commissioner Romeo L. Go and Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras. Chan alleged that during the pendency of his appeal, respondents orchestrated a series of seven meetings at expensive restaurants, presenting themselves as influence peddlers who could dictate the case’s outcome. He claimed respondent Go boasted of his power, indicated that NLRC decisions were merely drafted by clerks, and, together with Atty. Paras, pressured Chan to settle the monetary claims of the dismissed employee, Susan Que Tiu. Chan supported his allegations with affidavits from family members and receipts from the meetings.
Respondents denied the accusations, asserting the meetings were merely social gatherings and that they acted as intermediaries for a possible amicable settlement. They argued Chan initiated the contact and that their actions were within ethical bounds. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter against the lawyers.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Commissioner Romeo L. Go and Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through their conduct in relation to a pending NLRC case.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. 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 Chan’s evidence inadequate to meet this high standard. The affidavits and receipts merely established that meetings occurred but failed to provide conclusive, corroborative proof of the specific unethical acts alleged, such as explicit demands for money or clear representations of an ability to influence the NLRC decision.
The Court emphasized that while the described conduct, if proven, would constitute gross misconduct warranting severe sanction, the allegations remained uncorroborated. The narrative relied heavily on the complainant’s interpretation of events. In the absence of concrete evidence like recorded conversations or disinterested witness accounts detailing the purported illegal propositions, the Court could not uphold the charges. The dismissal is without prejudice, however, as it pertains solely to the administrative case’s evidentiary record and does not absolve respondents from potential liability in other forums where a different standard of proof may apply.