Arfapo v. Nano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jose A. Arfapo charged respondent Atty. Teodoro V. Nano, Sr. with malpractice for allegedly preparing a deed of sale of a portion of a 15-hectare land without the vendors' knowledge and participation, and for altering the consideration from P6,000.00 to P5,500.00, thereby appropriating P500.00 intended for realty taxes. Respondent denied the charges, asserting that the parties agreed on the price of P5,500.00 with a down payment of P1,500.00, leaving a balance of P4,000.00. He claimed complainant assured him the land was free of arrears and encumbrances. Respondent further alleged that complainant suggested a Deed of Absolute Sale instead of a mortgage to guarantee the balance due to complainant's confidence in the vendees. Respondent discovered unpaid realty taxes from 1969-1973, leading the vendees to file a civil case for specific performance and damages. Respondent also filed a criminal case for falsification against complainant. Respondent contended that the disbarment case was filed to dissuade him from exposing complainant's alleged ill-gotten wealth and prosecuting the falsification case. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) by resolution dated December 16, 1974. The investigation was indorsed to the City Fiscal of Davao City. Meanwhile, the parties amicably settled Civil Case No. 442 on December 10, 1974. On December 12, 1974, the complainant and vendees executed a joint affidavit stating their disinterest in prosecuting the criminal case for falsification. On May 12, 1975, complainant executed an "Affidavit to Dismiss the case," stating he had settled differences, agreed to the dismissal of the criminal case, and lost interest in the administrative complaint. The Fiscal recommended dropping the administrative case. The Petition: Respondent Teodoro V. Nano, Sr. is charged with malpractice for preparing a deed of sale of a portion of a 15-hectare land with improvements without the knowledge and participation of the vendors, the Spouses Jose A. Arfapo and Concepcion Mapalinta. The charge also alleges that respondent deliberately altered the consideration of the deed of sale from P6,000.00 to P5,500.00, making it appear that the remaining balance was P4,000.00 instead of P4,500.00, and appropriated P500.00 allegedly intended for realty taxes. The complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty. Teodoro V. Nano, Sr.
Issue(s)
Whether the administrative charges against respondent Atty. Teodoro V. Nano, Sr. are sufficiently substantiated by convincing evidence. Whether the complainant's affidavit of desistance warrants the dismissal of the administrative case.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the administrative charges against respondent Atty. Teodoro V. Nano, Sr.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantiation of charges: The Court held that the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing evidence. In this case, the complainant, instead of proving his affirmative allegations, submitted an affidavit of desistance. Furthermore, no other evidence was submitted to substantiate the charges. The deed of sale, which the complainant claimed was altered, appeared regular on its face and bore no traces of alteration. Therefore, the charges were not sufficiently substantiated. On the issue of the affidavit of desistance: The Court acknowledged that while the desistance of a complainant or the withdrawal of charges will not necessarily curtail the Court's authority to proceed, such a circumstance will undoubtedly render the investigation of the case difficult. In this instance, the complainant's affidavit of desistance, coupled with the lack of other evidence, made it impossible to proceed with the case. The respondent was entitled to the presumption of having performed his duty in accordance with his oath, and without substantiating evidence from the complainant, the charges could not be sustained.
Main Doctrine
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the case must be established by convincing evidence. An affidavit of desistance, while not necessarily curtailing the Court's authority, can render investigation difficult, especially when no other evidence substantiates the charges.