Facts:

The case at hand involves Ernesto B. Balburias (the complainant) versus Atty. Amor Mia J. Francisco (the respondent), decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines under A.C. No. 10631 on July 27, 2016. The dispute arose from an informal complaint lodged by Balburias against Atty. Francisco concerning her alleged unprofessional conduct during a labor case representation. Balburias had previously filed a criminal case against his former employee, Rosalyn A. Azogue, for embezzling funds from his company. During the labor proceedings instituted by Azogue against Balburias, where she was represented by Atty. Francisco, an incident occurred wherein Atty. Francisco, after a mediation conference, approached Balburias and purportedly stated, "kaya ka naming bayaran" (we can pay you), implying an ability to settle the monetary claims pertaining to his complaint. Balburias was reportedly shocked and felt humiliated by this assertion and interpreted it as a threat and an attemp

...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Ernesto B. Balburias filed a complaint (CBD Case No. 11-2930) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Amor Mia J. Francisco.
• The complaint stemmed from an incident reportedly occurring during a labor case hearing involving Balburias and his former employee Rosalyn A. Azogue.
• Balburias alleged that, during the proceedings, Atty. Francisco made remarks that he considered contemptuous and unprofessional.

Alleged Incident Details

• Balburias claimed that during one of the labor case hearings, Atty. Francisco approached him and, in a boastful tone, remarked “kaya ka naming bayaran” in the presence of several people.
• He further stated that after he questioned her by asking “kaya mo akong hayaran?”, Atty. Francisco retorted “kaya kitang bayaran sa halaga ng complaint mo,” which Balburias found both embarrassing and demeaning.
• According to Balburias, the statements implied an effort on Atty. Francisco’s part to “buy off” or corrupt opponents by offering to settle the matter, a suggestion he vehemently rejected.

Clarification and Alternative Account Presented by Atty. Francisco

• Atty. Francisco contended that the incident referred to by Balburias occurred after a mediation conference during which she was accompanied by Atty. Arnold D. Naval.
• During that period, Atty. Naval initiated discussions for a possible settlement by asking Balburias and his counsel if the matter could be resolved amicably.
• In the ensuing conversation, Balburias’ remark “kaya nyo bang bayaran ang nawala sa akin?” prompted Atty. Naval to reply, “kaya naming bayaran.”
• Atty. Francisco maintained that she was merely clarifying that the payment referred to the amount specified in the complaint and denied any intention to embarrass or corrupt.

Subsequent Proceedings and Evidence

• The Investigating Commissioner, Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III, conducted a mandatory conference and hearing.
• Commissioner Abelita found insufficient evidence to prove that Atty. Francisco violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Noted inconsistencies included Balburias’ failure to clearly account for the two-year delay in filing the complaint and the fact that both parties had a post-incident discussion in a cafeteria.
• Witness testimonies presented varied accounts:
• Some witnesses, such as Ana Maria Aquino and Analyn M. Delos Santos, testified that Atty. Francisco’s second statement was made only after Balburias appeared offended.
• Atty. Pastor Villanueva’s affidavit, however, indicated that the two statements were made in immediate succession.
• The discrepancy in the tone of delivery was also highlighted:
• Balburias claimed Atty. Francisco’s remarks were delivered arrogantly.
• Atty. Naval, who was present during the incident, asserted that the statements were made firmly but not in a demeaning tone.
• The records also established that Atty. Francisco was referring to the criminal case, not the labor case.

IBP Board of Governors’ Actions

• Based on Commissioner Abelita’s report and recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. XX-2013-227 on March 20, 2013, dismissing the complaint.
• Balburias’ motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied in Resolution No. XXI-2014-223 on May 2, 2014.
• Dissatisfied with the dismissal, Balburias filed the present petition for review before the Court.

Issue:

Whether the IBP Board of Governors committed a reversible error by:

• Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Abelita, which found no sufficient evidence of professional misconduct on the part of Atty. Francisco.
• Dismissing the complaint filed by Balburias against Atty. Francisco.

• Whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that Atty. Francisco acted in bad faith and in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer, warranting disciplinary action.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)