Title
Chan vs. Go
Case
A.C. No. 7547
Decision Date
Sep 4, 2009
Chan accused NLRC Commissioner Go and Atty. Paras of influence peddling and extortion during a labor case, but the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7547)

Allegations of Misconduct

Chan alleged that the respondents flaunted their influence within the NLRC and belittled the legal profession by asserting that NLRC decisions were merely drafted by clerical staff. Additionally, Chan claimed that during the proceedings of an illegal dismissal case filed against him by Susan Que Tiu, Go and Paras attempted to extort money from him in favor of Tiu. To substantiate these claims, Chan recounted a series of meetings with the respondents spanning from September 2003 to October 2004, during which he alleged they requested payment to settle Tiu's claims.

Meetings Details

The specific meetings detailed by Chan occurred as follows:

  • First Meeting (September 16, 2003): Chan met Go and Paras, where Go boasted about his power within the NLRC and instructed Chan to accede to Tiu's settlement demands.
  • Second Meeting (September 26, 2003): In the presence of a third party, Lim, the respondents reportedly pressured Chan to settle Tiu's claims.
  • Subsequent Meetings: Numerous meetings were described where settlement demands were discussed, with Chan alleging continual coercion and manipulation.

NLRC Decision and Related Cases

Despite the described extortion attempts, the NLRC ruled in favor of Tiu on September 10, 2004, affirming the labor arbiter's decision but modifying the award. Following Chan's unsuccessful appeals, he filed an administrative complaint against the respondents. Notably, he concurrently faced legal challenges initiated by Paras for purported slander, which Chan contended were retaliatory acts.

Respondents' Defense

In their defense, both Go and Paras denied the allegations, asserting that Chan sought their assistance regarding his labor case. They contended that Chan was the one organizing meetings and insisted that no extortion or unethical practices occurred. Paras also clarified that he was not a government lawyer at the time of the alleged misconduct, undermining Chan's claim.

Burden of Proof and Court's Ruling

The court emphasized the burden of proof lies with the complainant in disbarment proceedings. Upon examination of evidence, the court concluded that Chan's claims lacked sufficient substantiation. The relationship between the alleged meetings and extortion was tenuous at best, and the evidence presented consisted mainly of Chan’s assertions. Furthermore, the court hi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.