A.C. No. 838. January 21, 1974.
IN RE: ATTY. FELIZARDO M. DE GUZMAN.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from an ejectment proceeding, Civil Case No. 165187, before the City Court of Manila. Complainant Lagrimas Lapatha alleged that on the initial hearing date, she appeared without counsel and begged respondent Atty. Felizardo de Guzman, the opposing counsel, for a postponement. She claimed Atty. de Guzman verbally agreed, asked her to sign the court’s expediente, and after she left, he wrote “CONFESS JUDGMENT” above her signature without her knowledge or consent. The City Court consequently rendered a judgment by confession against her. Lapatha later filed a Petition for Relief before the Court of First Instance (CFI), where Judge Jesus de Veyra set aside the City Court’s decision. Judge de Veyra found that “machinations unworthy of an attorney” by Atty. de Guzman deprived Lapatha of her day in court and forwarded the matter to the Supreme Court for disciplinary action.
Upon referral, the Solicitor General conducted an investigation. The evidence presented there diverged significantly from the CFI findings. The City Court clerk testified that during the hearing, Lapatha affirmatively admitted the indebtedness alleged in the complaint when questioned by the judge, after which “confessed judgment” was written on the expediente and signed by both parties. Furthermore, evidence showed Lapatha made partial rental payments after the judgment, which was construed as an attempt to forestall execution, and she subsequently entered into a compromise agreement with the lessor to vacate at a later date.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Felizardo M. de Guzman should be held administratively liable for deceit and misconduct in the ejectment proceedings.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated Atty. de Guzman. The ruling emphasized the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests squarely on the complainant and must be established by clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence. The Solicitor General’s investigation report, which the Court adopted, found the evidence wanting to sustain the charge of deceit. The clerk of court’s credible testimony directly contradicted Lapatha’s allegations, indicating the confession of judgment was made openly in court. The legal presumption stands that a lawyer is innocent of charges and has performed his duties in accordance with his oath until proven otherwise. The subsequent actions of Lapatha, including the post-judgment payments and the compromise agreement, undermined her claim of being defrauded. The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension require a clear preponderance of evidence, which was not met in this case. The CFI’s findings, based on ex parte testimonies not substantiated during the formal investigation, were insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of Atty. de Guzman’s professional duties.