A.M. No. 827. April 29, 1977.
MAXIMO SANTIAGO, complainant, vs. Atty. MARTIN B. BUSTAMANTE, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maximo Santiago filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Martin B. Bustamante, alleging dishonesty and falsification of a notarial document. Santiago claimed that Atty. Bustamante made it appear that Santiago’s sister, Victoriana Santiago, executed a special power of attorney in his presence when she allegedly did not. In his answer, the respondent categorically denied the allegations. He asserted that the document was prepared in the presence of both the complainant and his sister, who were introduced to him by the late Mayor of San Manuel, Isabela. As special defenses, he cited his fifteen years of unblemished service as a notary public and alleged that the complainant, an ex-convict, was motivated by retaliation due to the respondent’s refusal to give false testimony in a separate criminal case against Santiago.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. Before the scheduled hearings, complainant’s counsel moved for postponement. Subsequently, on September 6, 1973, Santiago filed a motion to dismiss the administrative complaint, attaching an affidavit of desistance. In this affidavit, he admitted that he filed the charge merely as a retaliatory measure because his sister had filed a criminal complaint against him. With the dismissal of that criminal case, he lost all interest in pursuing the administrative matter. Consequently, no evidence was ever presented against Atty. Bustamante.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint for disbarment or discipline against Atty. Martin B. Bustamante should be dismissed given the complainant’s desistance and the lack of evidence.

RULING

Yes, the complaint is dismissed. The Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Solicitor General to dismiss the case. The legal logic is anchored on fundamental principles governing disbarment proceedings. First, the burden of proof rests squarely on the complainant. The charges must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Here, the record is devoid of any evidence against the respondent because the complainant desisted and withdrew the charges before any hearing could take place. The affidavit of desistance explicitly revealed the complaint’s origin in personal vendetta, not in any genuine professional misconduct.
Second, the Court relies on the legal presumption that a lawyer is innocent of the charges until proven otherwise and is presumed to have performed his duties regularly in accordance with his oath. Without any countervailing proof, this presumption stands. The Court cited the doctrine from In re Tionko and subsequent cases, emphasizing that for disbarment or suspension, the case must be established by convincing proof to a degree that compels the exercise of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act and the motivation must be clearly demonstrated, which is absent here. The respondent’s consistent appearance at hearings and request for early disposition further indicated his willingness to face the charges, which ultimately remained unsubstantiated. Therefore, with no evidence to overcome the presumptions of innocence and regularity, dismissal is the only proper course.