G.R. No. A.C. No. 736; October 23, 1967
Manuel R. Go, complainant, vs. Romulo Candoy, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Manuel R. Go filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Romulo Candoy on October 24, 1966, alleging acts constituting “deceit and grossly immoral conduct.” The complaint stemmed from a transaction involving a lot in Magallanes Village, Makati. Go alleged that based on a previous agreement, he gave a personal check for P7,140 to the Makati Development Corporation as initial payment and cash bond for the lot, leading the corporation to execute an “Agreement to Purchase and Sell” in favor of Candoy. On the same date, Go claimed he gave Candoy an additional P2,000 in cash, and Candoy executed an “Agreement to Purchase and Sell” in favor of Go. Go later paid the corporation P16,337.01 for the unpaid balance, prompting the corporation to execute a “Deed of Absolute Sale” in favor of Candoy. Subsequently, on August 30, 1965, Candoy and his wife sold the same land to spouses Amado and Astrid Barrientos via a “Contract to Sell.” To protect his rights, Go instituted a civil case and a criminal prosecution for estafa against Candoy, both pending at the time. In his answer, Candoy admitted the agreements and the deed but averred that he sold the lot to the Barrientos spouses only after Go had defaulted on their agreement, after being given all opportunity to comply, compelling Candoy to rescind. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. On January 23, 1967, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss based on an amicable settlement. The Solicitor General, without a hearing, submitted a report recommending that Candoy be admonished, noting the alleged violation by Go (non-payment of association dues of around P52.50) was trivial and expressing doubt about Candoy’s denial under oath of receiving the additional P2,000. Candoy, in a memorandum, objected to the Solicitor General’s conclusions, arguing no investigation was conducted and no evidence was presented to prove the P2,000 payment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent, Atty. Romulo Candoy, should be held administratively liable for deceit and grossly immoral conduct based on the facts of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Romulo Candoy. The Court held that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant and must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose a case free from doubt that compels the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary powers. The Court found that the Solicitor General erred in concluding it was hard to believe Candoy’s denial of receiving the additional P2,000, as the record was bereft of any proof of such payment; the complainant presented no evidence, such as a receipt, and no investigation was conducted. Regarding the rescission of the contract, the Court disagreed with the Solicitor General’s view that it was based on a trivial violation (non-payment of association dues) and was tainted with unfairness. The Court noted the breach by Go included not only the non-payment of dues but, more importantly, the failure to pay the full consideration of the sale, leaving an unpaid balance of P3,122.99. The Court held that Candoy, in rescinding, merely exercised a power explicitly conferred by the agreement, which Go had bound himself to comply with strictly. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s moral character must satisfy high standards, and such cases may proceed regardless of the complainant’s interest, but here, the charge was not duly proven. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.