GG 134 Case Title: SIAO ABA, MIKO LUMABAO, ALMASIS LAUBAN, and BENJAMIN DANDA,

complainants, vs. ATTYS. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, JR., WENCESLAO "PEEWEE" TRINIDAD, and
ANDRESITO FORNIER, respondents.

G.R. Number & Date: 7649. December 14, 2011.

Nature of the Case: This is an administrative complaint led by Siao Aba, Miko Lumabao, Almasis
Lauban and Benjamin Danda (complainants) against lawyers Salvador De Guzman, Jr., Wenceslao
"Peewee" Trinidad, and Andresito Fornier (respondents).

Respondents: Judge De Guzman 81year old retired RTC Judge, Atty. Trinidad & Atty. Fornier

Facts:
Complainants claim that in January 2006 they met former Pasay City Regional Trial Court Judge
Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. (De Guzman) in Cotabato City. De Guzman allegedly persuaded
them to file an illegal recruitment case (I.S. No. 2006-C- 31, Lauban, et al. vs. Alvarez, Amante,
Montesclaros, et al.) against certain persons, in exchange for money.
De Guzman allegedly represented to complainants that his group, composed of Pasay City
Mayor Wenceslao "Peewee" Trinidad (Trinidad), Atty. Andresito Fornier (Fornier), Everson Lim
Go Tian, Emerson Lim Go Tian, and Stevenson Lim Go Tian (Go Tian Brothers), were
untouchable.
Complainants were then asked to sign and file a Joint Complaint-Affidavit prepared by De
Guzman himself. During the proceedings before the Cotabato City Prosecutors Office,
complainants allegedly received several phone calls from De Guzman, Trinidad, Fornier and the
Go Tian brothers to pursue the case. When complainants asked De Guzman what would happen
if a warrant of arrest would be issued, De Guzman said Ipa tubus natin sa kanila, perahan natin
sila.
Complainants then decided to withdraw the criminal complaint. They were then offered by
respondents 200,000.00 and 1,000,000.00 respectively just for them to pursue the case which
they again refused.
For this reason, respondents allegedly orchestrated the filing of fabricated charges for
syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa against complainants.
Complainants received a text message from De Guzman saying: "Gud p.m. Tago na kayo. Labas
today from Iligan Warrant of Arrest. No Bail. Dating sa Ctbto pulis mga Wednesday. Gud luck
kayo."
Complainants in support of their allegations submitted the allegedly fabricated complaint,
support docs, letter of De Guzman to Cotabato City Councilor Orlando Badoy, De Guzmans
Affidavit of Clarification and other relevant docs.

Respondents Arguments:
All of the respondents denied the allegations saying that the basis of the administrative
complaint are all spurious. There are no details regarding the allegations of grave and serious
misconduct, dishonesty, violation of the lawyers oath.

Trinidad denied all the allegations. He declared that he has never communicated with any of the
complainants and has never been to Cotabato. Trinidad asserted that the complaint was a
fabricated, politically motivated charge, spearheaded by a certain Joseph Montesclaros
(Montesclaros), designed to tarnish Trinidad's reputation as a lawyer and city mayor. Trinidad
claims that Montesclaros was motivated by revenge because Montesclaros mistakenly believed
that Trinidad ordered the raid of his gambling den in Pasay City. Trinidad also claims that he,
his family members and close friends have been victims of fabricated criminal charges
committed by the syndicate headed by Montesclaros.

ISSUE: WON the respondents should be disbarred?

FALLO: WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
DISMISS the charges against Attys. Wenceslao "Peewee" Trinidad and Andresito Fornier for utter lack
of merit. We REVERSE the Decision of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
modifying and increasing the penalty in the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, and accordingly DISMISS the charges against Atty. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. also
for utter lack of merit.

HELD: NO. When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof, according
to the equipoise doctrine.

When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof, according to the
equipoise doctrine. This Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that
he is innocent of charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he
is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath.

The Court reverses the Decision of the Board of Governors and the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner regarding De Guzman's liability for the following reasons: (a) the
documents submitted by complainants in support of their complaint are not credible; (b)
complainants did not appear in any of the mandatory conference proceedings to substantiate
the allegations in their complaint; and (c) complainants were not able to prove by
preponderance of evidence that De Guzman communicated with them for the purpose of ling
fabricated illegal recruitment charges for purposes of extortion.

Complainants bear the burden of proof to establish that all the documents they submitted in support of
their allegations of misconduct against respondents are authentic. Unfortunately, complainants did not
even attend any mandatory conference called by the Investigating Commissioner to identify the
documents and substantiate or narrate in detail the allegations of misconduct allegedly committed by
respondents. To make matters worse, the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Affidavit of Complaint
complainants attached to their Letter-Complaint, which supposedly contained all their allegations of
misconduct against respondents, is spurious, not having been submitted to the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Iligan, despite purportedly having the signature and seal of the prosecutor.

All the allegations lack material details to prove their communication with De Guzman. The
warrant of arrest allegedly issued was not presented and De Guzmans mobile number was not
identified.

Notes:

Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest
level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by
substantial evidence, in that order. Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence
is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.