Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS v. ATTY. CARMELITA S. BAUTISTA-LOZADA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 10579 2014-12-10	ERLINDA FOSTER v. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG PER CURIAM
To rule otherwise would in effect deprive respondent of his right to appeal since administrative cases are filed directly with the Court. Furthermore, the quantum of evidence required in civil cases is different from the quantum of evidence required in administrative cases. In civil cases, preponderance of evidence is required. Preponderance of evidence is "a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto."[40] In administrative cases, only substantial evidence is needed. Substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, would suffice to hold one administratively liable.[41] Furthermore, the Court has to consider the prescriptive period applicable to civil cases in contrast to administrative cases which are, as a rule, imprescriptible.[42]
	AC. No. 6882 2008-12-24	MARISA BACATAN WILLIAMS v. ATTY. RODRIGO ICAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
On the technical issue of prescription, Frias v. Bautista-Lozada,[16] holds that that prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers.
	AC. No. 6882 2008-12-24	MARISA BACATAN WILLIAMS v. ATTY. RODRIGO ICAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Regrettably, Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which provides for a prescriptive period for the filing of administrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of this Corut. It should therefore be struck down as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.[18]
	ADM CASE NO. 6876 2008-03-07	HEIRS OF LYDIO “JERRY” FALAME v. ATTY. EDGAR J. BAGUIO TINGA, J,
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.[20] Dissatisfied, complainants filed the instant petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court reiterating their allegations in the complaint and their position paper.[21] They likewise assert that the IBP erred in holding that the instant administrative complaint had been filed out of time since it was filed on 16 January 2004, or three (3) years, four (4) months and sixteen (16) days after the second civil case was filed on 23 October 2000. [22] In addition, in their Consolidated Comment (should be Consolidated Reply),[23] complainants invoke the Court's ruling in Frias v. Bautista-Lozada[24] to support their contention that administrative complaints against members of the bar do not prescribe.[25]