AC 8658; (April, 2017) (Digest)
A.C. No. 8658, April 24, 2017
Francis C. Arsenio, Complainant vs. Atty. Johan A. Tabuzo, Respondent
FACTS
Complainant Francis C. Arsenio filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Johan A. Tabuzo, an Overseas Employment Adjudicator at the POEA, for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. Arsenio alleged that during a hearing on his administrative case, Atty. Tabuzo made him sign three blank sheets of paper. When Arsenio later inquired about this, Atty. Tabuzo reportedly shouted invectives, including threatening statements referencing a “Senator Cayetano” and claiming that many POEA lawyers “sell cases.” Arsenio later discovered his case was dismissed and filed a graft complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against a certain “Atty. Romeo Tabuso,” which found probable cause. However, the Regional Trial Court subsequently acquitted Atty. Tabuzo of the criminal charge.
Atty. Tabuzo denied the allegations, asserting the acts were baseless and that his due process rights were violated in the Ombudsman proceeding as he was not properly served notices due to the name discrepancy. He submitted affidavits from two colleagues attesting no such incident occurred. The IBP Board of Governors found a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a three-month suspension.
ISSUE
Whether the disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to disbar or discipline Atty. Tabuzo.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment complaint. The Court emphasized that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, intended to cleanse the legal profession, and the burden of proof rests on the complainant, requiring substantial evidence. The Court found the evidence insufficient. First, the Ombudsman Resolution finding probable cause was based solely on Arsenio’s uncontroverted complaint because Atty. Tabuzo, due to the name discrepancy (“Romeo Tabuso” vs. “Johan Tabuzo”), did not file an answer, not on a full evaluation of the merits. Second, Arsenio’s criminal acquittal did not automatically absolve him administratively, but conversely, the acquittal highlighted the weakness of the evidence. Third, the core of the administrative complaint rested on Arsenio’s sworn affidavit, which the Court deemed self-serving and uncorroborated. No other evidence substantiated the claim of abusive language or misconduct. The affidavits from Atty. Tabuzo’s colleagues, while not dispositive, further indicated a lack of substantial proof. Consequently, the complainant failed to meet the required evidentiary threshold. The Court resolved not to exercise its disciplinary power absent clear, convincing, and substantial evidence of ethical breaches.