Chan vs. Go

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence; absent such proof, the complaint is dismissed to protect the reputation of members of the bar frivolously or maliciously charged.

Complainant Gregory U. Chan and his companies were employers in an illegal dismissal case filed by Susan Que Tiu before the NLRC. Respondent Romeo L. Go was a Commissioner of the NLRC, and respondent Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras was a lawyer. The dispute arose while Chan's appeal from the labor arbiter's decision favoring Tiu was pending before the NLRC.

Gregory U. Chan, the complainant, was the employer of Susan Que Tiu, who filed an illegal dismissal case against him and his companies before the NLRC. On July 18, 2003, the labor arbiter ruled in favor of Tiu, ordering Chan to pay backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, and attorney's fees. Pending Chan's appeal before the NLRC, he alleged that NLRC Commissioner Romeo Go and Atty. Jose Raulito Paras attempted to extort money from him on behalf of Tiu. Chan claimed that Go and Paras arranged a series of meetings at expensive restaurants between September 2003 and October 2004, where Go purportedly claimed to be a powerful commissioner overseeing the labor case, offered Paras's services as legal counsel, and pressured Chan to settle with Tiu. Chan presented receipts for the meals and affidavits from his wife, brother, and accountant to substantiate his claims.

Respondent Paras denied the allegations, stating he was not present at several meetings and merely accompanied Go at others, treating them as social dinners rather than mediation for settlement. He also pointed out that he was not a government lawyer at the time, making the charge under Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility misplaced. Respondent Go dismissed the allegations as blatant lies, asserting that it was Chan who sought his help and organized the meetings through mutual acquaintances, and that he merely assisted in conciliation without coercing Chan or extorting money.

The Court found Chan's claims unconvincing. The labor case had already been decided in Tiu's favor before the alleged meetings began, and the NLRC subsequently affirmed the labor arbiter's decision against Chan. If Go had truly agreed to influence the outcome, the results would have been different. The receipts presented by Chan only proved that people ate at the restaurants, not that respondents were present. Furthermore, Chan's continued attendance at the meetings and payment of the bills, despite claiming to be offended, contradicted normal human behavior. The complaint was also filed almost four years after the alleged extortion, coinciding with a criminal case Paras filed against Chan, suggesting it was filed for leverage.

• Influence Peddling and Extortion: Complainant alleged that respondents Go and Paras were influence peddlers who attempted to extort money from him in behalf of Tiu, claiming they could direct the outcome of the labor case pending before the NLRC.
• Degradation of the Legal Profession: Complainant argued that respondents belittled and denigrated the nobility of the legal profession by claiming that NLRC decisions are merely drafted by humble secretaries or clerks.
• Violation of Ethical Rules: Complainant charged respondents with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, and the Rules of Court, specifically citing Rule 6.02, Canon 6 for Paras.

• Denial of Allegations: Respondent Paras denied conspiring with Go, knowing Tiu, or being present at several meetings, claiming he merely accompanied Go at others and treated them as social dinners. Respondent Go labeled the allegations as blatant lies, asserting it was Chan who sought his help and organized the meetings.
• Misapplication of Ethical Rules: Respondent Paras argued that the charge under Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility was misplaced because he was not a government lawyer at the time of the acts complained of.
• Motive for Filing: Respondent Paras alleged that the complaint was filed to gain leverage against the criminal case he had filed against Chan.

• Burden of Proof in Disbarment: Whether the complainant presented clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence to prove the allegations of influence peddling, extortion, and unethical conduct against the respondents.
• Applicability of Rule 6.02: Whether respondent Paras could be held liable under Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for acts committed while not in government service.

• Burden of Proof in Disbarment: No. The complaint was dismissed for lack of merit, as the complainant failed to establish his case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, relying on bare allegations contradicted by the circumstances.
• Applicability of Rule 6.02: No. The charge was misplaced because respondent Paras was not a government lawyer at the time material to the acts complained of, as certified by his former employer.

• Burden of Proof in Disbarment: In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant, who must establish the case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Here, except for bare allegations, there was no proof that respondents engaged in influence peddling or extortion. The labor case was already decided in Tiu's favor before the alleged meetings, and the NLRC affirmed the adverse decision against Chan afterward, negating any influence by Go. The receipts did not prove respondents' presence, and the affidavits of administrative personnel refuted claims about the drafting of NLRC decisions. Chan's continued attendance at meetings and payment of bills despite claiming offense defied logic. The belated filing of the complaint, coinciding with a criminal case filed by Paras against Chan, suggested it was filed for leverage rather than a genuine pursuit of disciplinary action.
• Applicability of Rule 6.02: Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer in government service from using his public position to advance private interests. The Court agreed with respondent Paras that this charge was misplaced because he was employed in the private sector (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.) from July 31, 2000 to March 31, 2004, the period material to the acts complained of.

• Burden of Proof in Disbarment — In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant, and the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the complaint, finding that Chan failed to present sufficient evidence beyond bare allegations to support his claims of influence peddling and extortion.
• Protection of the Reputation of Lawyers — The Court's duty is not only limited to disciplining culpable lawyers but also to protecting the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged. The Court invoked this principle to dismiss the baseless charges against the respondents.

• "The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged." — This passage articulates the dual duty of the Court in disciplinary proceedings, safeguarding the reputation of lawyers against unfounded charges.
• "In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence." — This establishes the standard of proof required in disbarment cases, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient.

• Aquino vs. Villamar-Mangaoang, 469 Phil. 613, 618 (2004) — Cited to support the rule that the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings lies with the complainant, requiring clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
• Urban Bank, Inc. vs. Peña, 417 Phil. 70, 78 (2001) — Cited for the principle that he who alleges has the onus of validating it.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The complaint alleged violations of this rule, but the Court found no sufficient evidence to support the claims.
• Rule 6.02, Canon 6, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer in government service from using public position to advance private interests. The Court found this inapplicable to respondent Paras as he was not in government service at the time.
• Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court — Enumerates grounds for the removal or suspension of attorneys. The complaint sought disbarment under this rule but failed due to lack of evidence.

• Minita V. Chico-Nazario
• Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
• Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
• Diosdado M. Peralta