A.M. No. 827 - APRIL 1977 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 827April 29, 1977 Maximo Santiago vs. Martin B. Bustamante G.R. No. L-21850April 29, 1977 Luis Camacho, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22412April 29, 1977 Jose Orellano vs. Romualdo Alvestir G.R. No. L-23749April 29, 1977 Faustino Cruz vs. J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc. G.R. Nos. L-23779-80April 29, 1977 Federico Quizon, et al. vs. Hon. Jose L. Baltazar, et al. G.R. No. L-23954April 29, 1977 American Cyanamid Co. vs. Director of Patents G.R. No. L-25806April 29, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Elmo Celeste, et al. G.R. No. L-34620April 29, 1977 Jesus P. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-40837April 29, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Constante L. De Peralta, et al. G.R. No. L-42847April 29, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Cecilia Que Yabut, et al. G.R. No. L-44129April 29, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Josan Poblador G.R. No. L-33360April 25, 1977 Maximino Carantes vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. L-207April 22, 1977 Secretary of Justice vs. Pio Marcos A.M. No. L-984April 22, 1977 Magdalena Obrero vs. Efren Tagala G.R. No. L-13413April 22, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Cu, et al. G.R. No. L-19998April 22, 1977 J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Vicente Jurilla, et al. G.R. No. L-25804April 22, 1977 Benjamin Sun Ong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-27070-71April 22, 1977 Joseph Cochingyan, Jr. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-28710April 22, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Conceso Aclo G.R. No. L-30523April 22, 1977 Lee Bun Ting vs. Jose A. Aligaen G.R. No. L-33155April 22, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente B. Montero G.R. No. L-33615April 22, 1977 Manuel Elizalde vs. Mario J. Gutierrez G.R. No. L-33650April 22, 1977 Jose L.C. Dizon vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-41863April 22, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Midpantao L. Adil G.R. No. L-42835April 22, 1977 Lydia Buenaventura vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission. G.R. No. L-44565April 22, 1977 Pilar S. Vergel De Dios vs. Hilarion U. Jarencio G.R. No. L-44903April 22, 1977 Rufino Magbaleta vs. Arsenio M. Gonong G.R. No. L-43696April 22, 1977 Ireneo Francisco vs.Workmen's Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-33705April 15, 1977 Air Line Pilots Asso. of the Philippines (Gaston Group) vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-29091April 14, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Omega G.R. No. L-25224April 9, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Tarasa Soliman, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Maximo Santiago vs. Martin B. Bustamante Luis Camacho, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jose Orellano vs. Romualdo Alvestir Faustino Cruz vs. J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc. Federico Quizon, et al. vs. Hon. Jose L. Baltazar, et al. American Cyanamid Co. vs. Director of Patents People of the Philippines vs. Elmo Celeste, et al. Jesus P. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Constante L. De Peralta, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cecilia Que Yabut, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Josan Poblador Maximino Carantes vs. Court of Appeals Secretary of Justice vs. Pio Marcos Magdalena Obrero vs. Efren Tagala People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Cu, et al. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Vicente Jurilla, et al. Benjamin Sun Ong vs. Republic of the Philippines Joseph Cochingyan, Jr. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Conceso Aclo Lee Bun Ting vs. Jose A. Aligaen People of the Philippines vs. Vicente B. Montero Manuel Elizalde vs. Mario J. Gutierrez Jose L.C. Dizon vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Midpantao L. Adil Lydia Buenaventura vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission. Pilar S. Vergel De Dios vs. Hilarion U. Jarencio Rufino Magbaleta vs. Arsenio M. Gonong Ireneo Francisco vs.Workmen's Compensation Com. Air Line Pilots Asso. of the Philippines (Gaston Group) vs. Court of Industrial Relations People of the Philippines vs. Jose Omega People of the Philippines vs. Tarasa Soliman, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

SECOND DIVISIONa

A.M. No. 827 April 29, 1977

MAXIMO SANTIAGO,complainant,
vs.
Atty. MARTIN B. BUSTAMANTE,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

FERNANDO,J.:

This is an administrative complaint against respondent Martin Bustamante, a member of the Philippine Bar, for dishonesty and falsification of a notarial document. According to complainant, Maximo Santiago, it was made to appear by respondent that a certain party, Victoriana Santiago, his sister, executed a special power of attorney in the presence of respondent when such was not the case. In the answer of respondent, he specifically denied the allegations of fact made by complainant and asserted that the preparation of the special power of attorney in question took place in the presence of both complainant and his sister, who were introduced to him by the late Mayor Maria Garcia of San Manuel, Isabela. As special defenses, he alleged that he had been a notary for fifteen years in good standing without any complaint having been lodged against him and that complainant, an ex-convict, was motivated to file the charge against him only because of his refusal to testify falsely to help complainant in a pending criminal case.

The matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The case was scheduled for hearing by the then Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra on September 5 and 6, 1968. Before such date, counsel for complainant filed a motion for the postponement of the investigation. Subsequently on September 6, 1973, complainant filed a motion to dismiss attaching thereto an affidavit of desistance, wherein he alleged that he charged respondent with the falsification of a notarial document only as a retaliatory measure, his sister having filed a criminal complaint against him and that with the dismissal of such complaint, he had lost interest in continuing with the administrative case against respondent. As a result, no evidence whatsoever is on record against the latter.

The report of Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza was submitted to this Court on April 30, 1976.ℒαwρhi৷The dismissal of the case was recommended.

The Solicitor General saw no reason for proceeding further after a study of the pleadings filed with him. It was apparent that respondent did get involved in the bitter differences between complainant and his sister, which led the latter to prosecute him. When she herself realized that the accusation was without basis, she moved to dismiss. That led complainant, no doubt satisfied with this turn of events, to do the same with respect to the charge against respondent, an affidavit of desistance being filed. The Solicitor General likewise noted as a circumstance in favor of respondent that he had "always been present each time this case was set for hearing and has constantly requested for an early disposition of the case thus filed against him."1

It was his considered view therefore "that there can be no valid reason for proceeding with the investigation of the case."2Relying further on "the legal presumption that a lawyer is innocent of the charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved and that he regularly performed his duty as an officer of the Court in accordance with his oath."3he recommended "that the complaint should be dismissed."4

Such a recommendation merits approval. That is in accordance with the leading case of In re Tionko5cited by the Solicitor General. That 1922 opinion of Justice Malcolm had been relied upon subsequently in a number of cases.6There is likewise this relevant excerpt from the opinion of the then Justice, now Chief Justice, Castro in Go v. Candoy:7"It is quite elementary that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be made the basis for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge against him must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated."8

WHEREFORE,the complaint against respondent Martin B. Bustamante, a member of the Philippine Bar, is dismissed. Let a copy of this resolution be entered on his record.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Martin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion Jr., J. is on leave.

Footnotes