Santiago v. Bustamante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Maximo Santiago filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Martin B. Bustamante for dishonesty and falsification of a notarial document. Complainant alleged that respondent made it appear that Victoriana Santiago, his sister, executed a special power of attorney in his presence, which did not happen. Respondent denied the allegations, asserting that the document was executed in his presence and that complainant, an ex-convict, was motivated by revenge due to respondent's refusal to testify falsely in a pending criminal case. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. A hearing was scheduled, but complainant filed a motion for postponement. Subsequently, complainant filed a motion to dismiss, attaching an affidavit of desistance. In the affidavit, complainant stated that he charged respondent as a retaliatory measure because his sister had filed a criminal complaint against him, and with the dismissal of that complaint, he lost interest in the administrative case. Consequently, no evidence was on record against respondent. The Petition: The Solicitor General recommended the dismissal of the case, noting that respondent was present at hearings and consistently requested an early disposition. The Solicitor General relied on the legal presumption that a lawyer is innocent until proven guilty and performs duties regularly.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint against respondent Atty. Martin B. Bustamante for dishonesty and falsification of a notarial document should be dismissed. Whether the complainant successfully discharged the burden of proof required in administrative cases against lawyers.
Ruling
The complaint against respondent Atty. Martin B. Bustamante is dismissed. A copy of the resolution shall be entered on his record.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the complaint should be dismissed: The complaint against respondent Atty. Martin B. Bustamante is dismissed. The Solicitor General recommended dismissal after the complainant filed an affidavit of desistance, stating that the charge was a retaliatory measure and that he had lost interest in pursuing the case. The Solicitor General also noted that respondent had consistently appeared for hearings and requested an early disposition. This recommendation aligns with the principle that in administrative proceedings against lawyers, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and charges must be substantiated by convincing proof. On whether the complainant discharged the burden of proof: The complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof required in administrative cases against lawyers. The record is devoid of any evidence against the respondent, particularly after the complainant filed an affidavit of desistance. The Supreme Court has consistently held that charges against lawyers must be established by convincing proof, free from doubt, to warrant the exercise of its disciplinary powers. Relying on the presumption that a lawyer is innocent of the charges until the contrary is proved, and that he regularly performed his duties, the Court found no basis to proceed with the investigation.
Main Doctrine
In administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the charge must be established by convincing proof, free from doubt, to warrant the exercise of the Court's disciplinary powers. An affidavit of desistance, coupled with the lack of evidence, leads to the dismissal of the complaint.