A

A.C. No. 4934 March 17, 2004DANIEL S. AQUINO v. ATTY. MARIA LOURDES VILLAMAR-MANGAOANGFACTSOn July 2, 1996, a passenger named Christopher B. Gomez arrived at the NAIA from San Francisco, Californiaunder Flight PR105. When one of his balikbayan boxes passed through the Bureau of Customs xray machine, theimage of what looked like handgun parts appeared. A rigid examination conducted by Customs Examiner ManolitoErmitao confirmed that the items were assorted gun parts. The Chairman of the NAIA-DOJ Prosecution TaskForce caused the filing of a criminal complaint against Gomez with the Department of Justice.Complainant claims that prior to or during the preliminary investigation of the case, particularly on September 2,1996, NAIA Customs Police Officer Apolonio Bustos and respondent ordered the transfer of the gun parts insideGomezs balikbayan box to another box. She then ordered Office Messenger Joseph Maniquis to deliver to theState Prosecutor the balikbayan box without the gun parts. According to complainant, respondent did thisbecause Gomez was a close friend. The switching of the balikbayan boxes and the substitution of the evidenceresulted in the dismissal of the criminal charges against Gomez.Respondent avers that she could not have switched the contents of the balikbayan box of Gomez because shewas not in charge of the physical disposition of the evidence. She pointed out that if complainants allegationswere true, he should have filed a complaint against her after the case against Gomez was dismissed in 1996.However, he waited more than two years before bringing these unfounded and false accusations against her.The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. OnMarch 4, 2003, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack ofmerit.ISSUEThis administrative complaint prays that respondent be disbarred for allegedly introducing false evidence in acase and for breaching her duties to the legal professionRULINGThe duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to thosefound culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciouslycharged. In

disbarment proceedings

, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise itsdisciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Inthe case at bar, complainant failed to meet the required evidentiary standard. In the absence of convincing orclearly preponderant evidence, as in this case, the complaint for disbarment against respondent should bedismissed.WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.