SECOND DIVISION
SPOUSES
WILFREDO
BOYBOY AND
LYDIA BOYBOY,
Petitioners,
A.C.
No.
5225
April 29, 2003 - versus -
ATTY.
VICTORIANO
R. YABUT, JR.,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Ei
incumbit probotio qui dicit, non qui negat.
"He who asserts,
not he who denies,must prove."
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This administrative
case against Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr., stemmed from a complaint
filed
by Spouses Wilfredo Boyboy and Lydia Boyboy accusing him of blackmail
and
extortion, and seeking his disbarment from the practice of law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant-spouses
alleged that sometime in November 1999 respondent called complainant
Dr.
Lydia Boyboy at her clinic in Angeles City threatening to charge her
with
estafa before the NBI and cause the revocation of her physician’s
license
unless complainant paid him P300,000.00 informing her at the same time
that he was in possession of incriminatory evidence against her; on 7
December
1999 respondent went to the clinic of Dr. Boyboy and personally served
on her a subpoena from the NBI requiring complainants to appear in the
investigation of the case for estafa through falsification of public
documents
which respondent filed against the complainants; the following day,
complainant
Wilfredo Boyboy visited respondent at his law office to discuss the
case;
respondent intimidated to Wilfredo Boyboy that he had already persuaded
Atty. Cris Balancio, NBI Director for Region III, to dismiss the case
for
a consideration of P400,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainants further
averred that, appalled by the increased demand, they arranged a meeting
with the NBI Director to inquire about the demand for P400,000.00, and
Atty. Balancio denied having made such a demand and reacted adversely
to
the name-dropping of respondent; that Atty. Balancio recommended
an entrapment operation against respondent but, for lack of funds, the
planned entrapment did not push through. Instead, complainants
only
filed a criminal complaint under Art. 282, The Revised Penal Code,[1]
against respondent in connection with the blackmail and extortion
incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent denied the
charge as unfounded, baseless and groundless, contending in his Answer
that the disbarment case was deliberately resorted to by complainants
to
harass and make even with him as he filed criminal cases against the
complaining
spouses, and an administrative case against Dr. Lydia Boyboy. He
narrated that he came to know complainants only when a certain Ms.
Arlene
Sto. Tomas sought his professional services. Ms. Sto. Tomas was a
member of CHAMPUS, the entity handling the Medicare benefits of U.S.
veterans
and their families. He said that Ms. Sto. Tomas discovered that
complainants,
among other members of a syndicate, received US$90,000.00 from CHAMPUS
after filing fictitious medical claims in the name of Ms. Sto. Tomas
and
her family.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to
respondent,
he agreed to handle the case of Ms. Sto. Tomas and filed the
corresponding
criminal cases for estafa through falsification of public documents and
perjury, and an administrative case for the revocation of Dr. Boyboy’s
license. In fact, complainants tried to persuade Ms. Sto.
Tomas
to withdraw the cases against them but in vain. As Ms. Sto. Tomas
showed no sign of softening her stance against complainants, the latter
started filing cases against her to force her to withdraw the cases she
had filed, and against respondent to force him to withdraw as counsel
for
Ms. Sto. Tomas.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court referred
this case to the IBP for its Committee on Bar Discipline to investigate
which thereafter submitted its Report and Recommendation, which was
adopted
by the IBP, for respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for
three
(3) months.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After thoroughly going
over the records, we feel very uncomfortable with the recommendation of
the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
(CBD-IBP). The CBD-IBP may have arrived at its conclusion on the
basis alone of affidavits and pleadings without any testimonial
evidence,
contrary to established procedure, despite the fact that the charges of
blackmail and extortion are factual matters which must be established
and
proved with sufficient competent evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We must emphasize that
a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice.
Accusation
is not synonymous with guilt. There must always be sufficient
evidence
to support the charge. This brings to the fore the application of
the age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his
allegations.
In the case before us, it is enough for respondent to deny complicity
in
the alleged blackmail or extortion, without more, for he is not under
obligation
to prove his negative averment, much less to disprove what has not been
proved by complainants. Thus, we have consistently held that if
the
complainant/plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause
of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which
he bases his claim, the respondent/defendant is under no obligation to
prove his exception or defense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records are barren
of any evidence that would prove respondent’s culpability.
Other than complainants’ naked assertion that respondent demanded
P300,000.00
from them which was later allegedly increased to P400,000.00, in
exchange
for the dropping of the charges against them for estafa, no other proof
was presented to back up the accusation. Precisely, the
absence
of any evidence of blackmail and extortion prompted the CBD-IBP to
resolve
the case against respondent solely on the self-serving declarations of
the parties set forth in their pleadings. Thus the Report and
Recommendation
states -
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a painstaking
scrutiny and careful evaluation of the statements and
counter-statements
made by the parties in their respective pleadings, the undersigned
finds
that complainants were able to sufficiently establish their charge by a
clear preponderance of evidence (Underscoring supplied).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records lay bare
the following documents of complainants: (a) Annex
"A"
of the Complaint, which is the cellular phone number of Atty. Cris
Balancio,
NBI Director, Region III; (b) Annex "B" of the Complaint,
Complaint-Affidavit
of Dr. Lydia Boyboy; (c) Annex "C" of the Complaint,
Salaysay
of Wilfredo Boyboy; (d) Annex "D" of the Complaint, a newspaper
clipping
stating that complainant Dr. Lydia Boyboy was charged with estafa thru
falsification of public documents; (e) Annex "E" of the
Complaint,
letter of the Chief Attorney of the Professional Regulations Commission
(PRC) requiring Dr. Boyboy to submit a counter-affidavit in connection
with a complaint filed against her for unprofessional and/or dishonest
conduct; (f) Annex "A" of the Reply, complainants’ Motion to Dismiss
the
charge for perjury filed with the City Prosecutor of Manila; (g)
Annexes "A-1" and "A-2" of the Reply, Counter-Affidavits of spouses
Wilfredo
and Lydia Boyboy; (h) Annex "A-3" of the Reply, Subpoena to
Wilfredo
Boyboy issued by the City Prosecutor of Manila in connection with a
perjury
case; and, (i) Annexes "B" - "B-4," inclusive, of the Reply,
Complaint-Affidavit
and Reply-Affidavit of Wilfredo Boyboy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is all too obvious
from the foregoing that there is a dearth of evidence which would in
any
way prove the commission of blackmail and extortion, much less
incriminate
respondent for those offenses. Even the baseless postulations in
the affidavits would certainly not carry the day for complainants in
view
of their lack of evidentiary value. It is not difficult to
manufacture
charges in the affidavits, hence it is imperative that their
truthfulness
and veracity be tested in the crucible of thorough
examination.
The hornbook doctrine is that unless the affiants themselves take the
witness
stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, those affidavits
must
be excluded from the proceedings for being inadmissible and hearsay,[2]
as in this case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The standard of substantial
evidence required in administrative proceedings is more than a mere
scintilla.[3]
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate
to support a conclusion. While rules of evidence prevailing in
courts
of law and equity shall not be controlling, the obvious purpose being
to
free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so
that
the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in
judicial
proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order, this
assurance
of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so
far
as to justify orders without basis in evidence having rational
probative
force.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lamentably, the evidence
against respondent does not meet the mandated standard. At best,
complainants would indulge in presumptions which, unfortunately, cannot
be a valid basis to slap respondent with administrative sanctions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is relevant to note
at this point that on 16 October 2000 the Assistant City Prosecutor of
Angeles City dismissed for lack of probable cause the criminal case
against
respondent Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr., for violation of Art. 282 of
The
Revised Penal Code, in connection with the alleged blackmail and
extortion
filed by complainants against respondent.[5]
Relevant excerpts of the Assistant City Prosecutor’s findings follow –chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards the accusation
against Atty. Yabut, the same would necessarily fail on the basis alone
of the allegation that he made the demand for money right there in his
law office x x x x. Nevertheless, even assuming "en arguendo"
that
this case against Atty. Yabut is given due course, the result would
still
be the same. The existence of a very strong motive on the part of
Wilfredo
Boyboy or his wife Dr. Boyboy to get back at him for exposing them in
their
"modus operandi" victimizing CHAMPUS beneficiaries, whether true or
not,
relegate their accusation to a mere made-up story or possibly a
concoction
designed to silence Atty. Yabut. Doubtful of its commission, as
it
is, the doubt should always favor the one accused. In addition, proof
of
this instant charge is uncorroborated except the lone statement of
Wilfredo
Boyboy. There must be positive proof of a clear and convincing
evidence
against Atty. Yabut considering that the charge is a very serious
accusation
with far reaching implications x x x x. Therefore, considering that x x
x the evidence are not enough to indict the respondents of the charge,
this Investigation opines for the outright dismissal of this case for
lack
of a prima facie case.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, we are perplexed:
If complainants could not even hurdle the low quantum and quality of
proof
needed to sustain a finding of probable cause, how could the CBD-IBP
conclude
with definiteness that complainants’ evidence has crossed the much more
rigid threshold of substantial evidence?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Concededly, respondent’s
defense of denial is inherently weak. But where denial is set up
as a defense, courts should not at once look upon it with wary eyes for
there are occasions where it could actually be the real and untarnished
truth. Indeed, what other kind of evidence must be adduced by
respondent,
who is asserting the non-occurrence of extortion or blackmail, if not
denial?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Quite surprisingly,
the very plain terms of the Report and Recommendation would show in
effect
that the CBD-IBP erroneously passed upon the credibility of witnesses -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the first place,
complainants have averred in chronological order and in a detailed
manner
the events involved in the charge. There is hardly any reason to
doubt their asseverations as they contained details that only an
insider
or one privy to the transaction would have known.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Secondly, the undersigned
had laboriously searched for any improper motive on the part of the
complainants
that drove them to file the instant suit but found none. The
record,
however, shows that complainants and respondent had no previous
acquaintance
and did not know each other since Adam. It was only when Ms. Sto.
Tomas was referred to respondent that the latter came to know for the
first
time about the complainants x x x x Such being the case, it would,
therefore,
be utterly unthinkable and taxing to the imagination to consider the
instant
case as a harassment suit. Hence, it is safe to conclude that
complainants
have been genuinely moved by a serious quest for justice for the
wrongful
and illicit conduct as shown by respondent. (Underscoring
supplied)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The words now written
in bold in the first and second paragraphs above quoted for emphasis
are
but puerile dialectics and conclusions devoid of evidentiary
support.
It is significant that in its Order of 21 August 2001, the CBD-IBP
dispensed
with a full-dress hearing, i.e., the presentation of testimonial
evidence,
purportedly to expedite the proceedings. Instead, it required the
parties to simply file their respective memoranda and thereafter submit
the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings.[7]
Thus, there was obviously nothing upon which an assessment on
credibility
of witnesses may be predicated, since the CBD-IBP never had the
opportunity
of hearing the witnesses, or observing their deportment and manner of
testifying.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The oftentimes thin
but clear line between fact and prevarication is not always discernible
from a mere reading of the cold pages of the records. Certainly,
only a judge who had personally heard the witnesses and observed their
demeanor on the stand can arrive at an informed and intelligent
judgment
on whom to believe and whom not to believe.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There can be no quarrel
that the act of the CBD-IBP in dispensing with the hearing is fairly
within
the bounds of permissible legal procedure; for after all, as observed
in
the ponencia, "a trial-type hearing is not always de rigueur in
administrative
proceedings." But we emphasize that since the CBD-IBP inexorably
anchored
its Report and Recommendation on complainants’ credibility, a
trial-type
hearing becomes an indispensable requirement in this case.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be stressed
that the CBD-IBP is tasked to look into and investigate beyond the
serious
allegations of wrongdoing purportedly committed by a member of the Bar,
and thereafter recommend the imposition of the proper administrative
penalty
upon the culpable party, when warranted by the evidence. Failure
of respondent to appear at the scheduled hearings despite notices did
not
relieve the CBD-IBP of the duty to diligently inquire into the factual
assertions of complainants in their pleadings and affidavits. Ordinary
prudence dictates that it should have proceeded with the hearings and
accordingly
received ex parte the testimonial evidence of complainants. If
respondent
failed to appear once or twice because he was abroad "to have a
thorough
medical check-up and the long awaited relaxation from hectic
schedules,"
he should have been warned that if he should not appear again the
evidence
of the complainants would be received ex parte and he may be considered
to have waived his right to appear and present his evidence
thereafter.
But no such warning appears to have been made before this case was
eventually
decided on the merits.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering the dismal
state of complainants’ "evidence," we cannot rule out the possibility
that,
as asserted by respondent, the instant disbarment case was
ill-motivated
being retaliatory in nature and aimed at striking back at him for
having
filed the criminal case for estafa and an administrative case for grave
misconduct, dishonesty and malpractice against Dr. Lydia Boyboy.
Verily, respondent’s fears of being "stricken back" may just as well be
viewed as good and equally plausible as the blackmail and extortion
alleged
by complainants but which have not been established with an iota of
evidence
or any degree of certitude.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We can only echo in
principle our admonition in Castaños v. Escaño, Jr.,[8]
which although involving a bribery charge against a judge, may
nevertheless
apply by analogy in the present recourse:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An accusation of bribery
is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Thus, to our mind,
the complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of such
an
accusation. Inasmuch as what is imputed against the respondent
judge
connotes a misconduct so grave that, if proven, it would entail
dismissal
from the bench, the quantum of proof required should be more than
substantial.
We have held in the case of Lopez v. Fernandez that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Numerous administrative
charges against erring judges have come to this Court and We viewed
them
with utmost care, because proceedings of this character, according to
In
Re Horrilleno, as set forth in the opinion of Justice Malcolm, are in
their
nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules
applicable
to criminal cases. The charges must therefore, be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. This 1992 decision has been subsequently
adhered
to in a number of cases decided by this Court."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x x In order
that the allegation of a charge of this nature may not be considered a
fairy tale, evidence other than the doubtful and questionable verbal
testimony
of a lone witness should be adduced. Entrapment should have been
pursued. Evidence of a reasonable report to police authorities
should
have been presented. Record of where the bribe money came from,
its
specific denominations and the manner respondent accepted and disposed
of it should have been clearly shown. (Underscoring supplied for
emphasis)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
So must it be in the
instant case. An accusation for blackmail and extortion is a very
serious one which, if properly substantiated, would entail not only
respondent’s
disbarment from the practice of law, but also a possible criminal
prosecution.
To be sure, it will take more than mere pleadings and unreliable
affidavits
to lend an aura of respectability and credibility to complainants’
accusations.
A finding of guilt should only come from the strength of complainants’
evidence, not from the weakness of respondent’s defense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this connection,
the sad reality in cases of this nature is that no witness can be
called
to testify on the attempts at extortion since no third party is
ordinarily
involved to witness the same. What independent evidence can there
be in a situation like this, when the only persons present are the ones
who made the demand and on whom the demand was made?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We need not search far
and wide for answers, for it was already given in the aforecited case
of
Castaños v. Escaño, Jr. Entrapment has been a tried
and tested method of trapping and capturing felons in the act of
committing
clandestine crimes, such as sale and distribution of prohibited drugs,
blackmail, extortion and bribery. It can provide hard-to-dispute
real evidence of culpability in the form of the marked money. Had
complainants pursued the alleged planned entrapment of respondent,
their
case could have assumed an entirely different complexion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainants’ explanation
that they failed to entrap respondent "for lack of funds," is too lame
and flimsy an excuse. It was not necessary for them to raise the
whole amount allegedly demanded by respondent to set up an entrapment,
for a few genuine bills stuffed with blank papers cut to resemble money
bills would have been sufficient for the purpose. Law enforcement
authorities have employed this standard technique in cases where the
amount
demanded by the person to be apprehended is too substantial.
Undoubtedly,
Director Balancio of the NBI, who purportedly suggested the entrapment
of respondent, should be conversant with such technique but,
unfortunately,
no explanation was given for not applying the accepted standard
procedure
except allegedly "for lack of funds." This, we say, is incredible!chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even more strange is
the fact that Director Balancio was not even presented to testify in
behalf
of complainants to prove at least that the supposed "blackmail" or
"extortion"
was reported to him, and that complainants indeed sought his help
relative
thereto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Looking at the present
instance with an absolutely objective eye, we are not disposed to
accept
as gospel truth complainants’ imputation of criminal or administrative
wrongdoing to respondent in view of the existence of a wide chasm
between
the accusations and proof. The accusations should be fittingly
treated
for what they are - mere accusations founded on speculation and
conjecture,
if not sheer temerity. For these reasons, we are unable to yield
assent to the Report and Recommendation of the CBD-IBP, otherwise the
decision
that would be handed down would unlock Pandora’s box of
abuse.
Perhaps we may not realize it, but lawyers would be at the mercy of the
shrewd, the sinister, and the disgruntled who could very easily vent
their
rancor against members of the Bar through the mere expedient of hurling
unsubstantiated - worse, even malicious and prevaricated -
claims.
Surely, all lawyers may fall victims of this vicious scheme.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the instant
administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent ATTY.
VICTORIANO
R. YABUT, JR., is DISMISSED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
and Callejo, Sr.,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Art. 282 punishes the crime of Grave Threats. Blackmailing and
extortion
are punished under Art. 283 on Light Threats. See Reyes, The Revised
Penal
Code, 1993 ed., p. 559.
[2]
See People v. Quidato, G.R. No. 117401, 1 October 1998, 297 SCRA 1, 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
See Preceding Note.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Docketed as I.S. No. 00-0592, Wilfredo Boyboy and Dr. Lydia Boyboy v.
Atty.
Victoriano Yabut, Jr. and Arlene Sto. Tomas,
[6]
Annex "B." IBP Records, Vol III, p. 11-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
See IBP Records, Vol. III, p. 54.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-955, 251 SCRA 174, 184-185, 191.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |