Practice question
A client charges a lawyer with retaining entrusted funds. The record includes the lawyer's signed receipt, authenticated messages acknowledging receipt and an unpaid obligation to account, and bank records identifying the transfer. After evaluating the whole record, the disciplinary tribunal finds the materials relevant and adequate for a reasonable mind to conclude that the alleged misconduct occurred. The lawyer argues that no eyewitness saw a physical cash delivery and that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Which assessment best applies CPRA section 32?
- The lack of a physical-delivery eyewitness necessarily defeats the complaint
- The tribunal must demand criminal proof because funds are involved
- The complainant's burden can be met by relevant, reasonably adequate evidence without importing the criminal standard
- Administrative liability follows automatically from any bank transfer
- The respondent must disprove every allegation even if the documents are irrelevant
Legal references
- https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/22-09-01-SC-FINAL.pdf — CPRA, Canon VI, section 32.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.