PO1 JOSE B. CASPE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10679

MARCH 10, 2015

FACTS:

PO1 Jose B. Caspe brought separate suits for damages and disbarment against Atty. Aquilino A.
Mejica before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. First is when Atty. Mejica disregarded the conflict of
interest rule when Atty. Mejica served as a counsel of Caspe when he filed a complaint for attempted
murder against Antonio Rodriguez, Jr. When Rodriguez filed his counter-affidavit, it was Atty. Mejica
who counseled and represented him. The second, and the present complaint is when Atty. Mejica tried
to negotiate a settlement but Caspe refused. Atty. Mejica allegedly then threatened Caspe that “he will
help file cases after cases against the complainant until he kneels before [him]. He will ‘put down’
complainant so much so that he will be removed from the service.” From then on, Caspe alleged, Atty.
Mejica maliciously encouraged the filing of suits against him.

The IBP ordered Atty. Mejica to submit his answer and issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference
for a scheduled hearing. However, Atty. Mejica failed to appear in those hearings contending he never
received a copy of the complaints against him. The IBP-CBD ordered the case submitted for decision
and found respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 of the CPR. Atty. Mejica maintains
that he was not afforded due process that he was not given the opportunity to answer. Atty. Mejica
also maintained that he never threatened Caspe because he was not present during the preliminary
conference where he allegedly uttered the threatening words.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Mejica violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:

YES. The court finds Atty. Mejica guilty of violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 and Canon 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspend Atty. Mejica from practice of law for two years.
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in good moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor as to render him unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. In disciplinary proceedings
against members of the bar, only clear preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. As
long as the evidence presented by complainant or that taken judicial notice of by the Court is more
convincing and worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto, the imposition of
disciplinary sanction is justified. The Court has required that a complainant has the onus of proving the
charges against respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.