This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove the allegations in the complaint by preponderant evidence. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.[27] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him must be dismissed.[29] | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court emphasizes that an attorney enjoys the presumption of innocence, and whoever initiates administrative proceedings against the attorney bears the burden of proof to establish the allegation of professional misconduct.[45] When the complainant fails to discharge the burden of proof, the Court has no alternative but to dismiss the charge and absolve the attorney. | |||||