Maderazo v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Carmenchu Maderazo filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Benjamin del Rosario, alleging that he represented himself as separated from his wife, lived maritally with her, and that a son was born to them. The complaint further alleged that respondent abandoned both complainant and their child. Procedural History: Complainant filed an action for recognition of the child and support before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. Respondent denied the allegations. The matter was referred to the Solicitor General's Office for investigation. The Solicitor General's Office reported that the complainant adduced no evidence to support her complaint. Complainant executed an affidavit stating she was misled into filing the complaint, that respondent is not the father of her child, and that she had no intimate relations with him. Complainant's lawyer confirmed the affidavit was voluntarily executed. Complainant also failed to appear at the investigation. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City dismissed the civil case for support and recognition based on a joint motion filed by the parties. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought disciplinary action against respondent for alleged cohabitation and abandonment.
Issue(s)
Whether disciplinary action should be taken against respondent Atty. Benjamin del Rosario for alleged cohabitation with the complainant and subsequent abandonment of her and their child. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges filed against the respondent.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Benjamin del Rosario is dismissed. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on his record.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether disciplinary action should be taken against respondent Atty. Benjamin del Rosario for alleged cohabitation with the complainant and subsequent abandonment of her and their child: The Court found that the complainant adduced no evidence in support of her complaint against the respondent. Furthermore, the complainant executed an affidavit stating that she was misled into filing the administrative complaint, that the respondent is not the father of her child, and that she had never had any intimate relations with him. Her lawyer confirmed that the affidavit was voluntarily executed. The complainant's repeated failure to appear at the investigation also indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the case and strengthened the belief that her complaint could not be substantiated. The civil case for support and recognition filed by the complainant was also dismissed by the Court of First Instance based on a joint motion of the parties. On the issue of whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges filed against the respondent: The Court reiterated the principle that disciplinary action should only follow where there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that an attorney is innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in accordance with his oath. In the absence of any evidence demonstrating culpability, the administrative charge cannot prosper. The facts presented showed a lack of evidence to support the allegations of cohabitation and abandonment.
Main Doctrine
In the absence of any evidence demonstrating culpability, an administrative charge against a member of the bar cannot prosper, as the presumption is that the attorney is innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in accordance with his oath.