Eugalca vs.

Lao

FACTS:
In a verified complaint dated April 7, 2005, Godofredo Eugalca charged Atty. Dinna M. Lao with abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and the judiciary. The complaint stemmed from a traffic altercation between complainant Eugalca and respondent Lao which occurred on March 7, 2005 along the Alabang-Zapote Road. Complainant, accompanied by fellow employee Gilbert Ibe, was then driving a yellow Suzuki Multi Cab with plate number GTV-339 heading south. Respondent Lao was driving a Honda City bearing plate number XPZ-386 and negotiating the stretch of Concha Cruz Drive which was perpendicular to the Alabang-Zapote Road. At that time, respondent Lao's son was sitting at the front passenger side of the car. According to complainant, upon the collision, respondent Lao alighted from her car and berated complainant, shouting angrily, "Binangga mo ako! Di mo ako pinagbigyan. Mamatay ka em>sana. Makarma ka. Mamatay na ang mga anak mo, di mo mababayaran ang damage sa kotse ko ng mga P100,000.00!" Respondent also allegedly bragged about being a lawyer working in the Supreme Court and about an upcoming promotion.

Respondent asked for the complainants drivers license. Since the complainant left his license at home, Respondent Lao asked for his plate number instead. According to complainant, before they
parted ways, respondent abrasively gave her name and mobile phone number. In her comment, respondent Lao presented a different version of what transpired after the collision. Respondent claimed that it was complainant who alighted from his vehicle with all force and aggressively pointed an accusing finger at her. She denied bragging about her position, claiming that she merely identified herself in order to forestall possible physical harm in view of complainant's aggressive demeanor. She also denied uttering the aforequoted remarks but instead admonished complainant saying, "Makakamatay ka sa pagmamadali mo, wala ka pa palang driver's license, pasahero ko ang anak ko, e kung makarma ka at mangyari sayo ito." When complainant failed to show his driver's license or any form of identification including a copy of the Suzuki's certificate of registration, respondent requested complainant to look for a police officer or to proceed to the nearest police station. Instead, complainant voluntarily offered to give respondent the front number plate of the Suzuki as an acknowledgement of his fault. Respondent declared that she would return the number plate upon satisfaction of her insurance participation in the amount of P5,000.00. Respondent admitted having surrendered the number plate to the Las Pias police station on March 29, 2005.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent be charged with abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and the judiciary.

HELD: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and respondent Lao be admonished for not immediately returning the number plate. The OCA gave little weight to complainant's allegations of threatening and abusive conduct on the part of respondent. It must be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required to establish a respondent's malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. More importantly, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Complainant's allegations are self-serving and deserve scant consideration. Other than his uncorroborated statements, complainant did not present any other evidence to support his accusation that respondent exhibited abrasive conduct and indeed uttered disrespectful and abusive remarks. The Court finds it odd that while complainant was accompanied by a fellow employee, the latter's sworn statement was not likewise submitted to corroborate complainant's allegations. The Court notes that complainant committed a clear violation of a traffic regulation in not carrying a driver's license when the traffic accident happened. Complainant's credibility is doubtful as shifting the blame on respondent may be a way of minimizing his fault or explaining away his conduct. Complainant has failed to overcome the burden of proving by substantial evidence that respondent committed the alleged acts and uttered the aforequoted remarks. WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Dinna M. Lao is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Atty. Lao, however, is ADMONISHED for not having been more circumspect in her actuation than heretofore shown.