G.R. No. A.C. No. 830. January 28, 1971.
WENCESLAO (BEN) ZUBIRI, complainant, vs. ATTY. CANDIDO JUMAPAO, respondent.

FACTS

Wenceslao Zubiri filed a verified disbarment complaint against Atty. Candido Jumapao on June 21, 1968. Jumapao filed a verified answer controverting the charges on October 10, 1968. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, which was subsequently delegated to the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu. Multiple hearings were scheduled throughout 1969 but were repeatedly postponed due to requests from both parties for more preparation time and the unavailability of counsel.
On August 8, 1969, instead of presenting evidence, complainant Zubiri filed a “Motion to Drop Complaint.” He stated he was no longer interested in prosecuting the case, his witnesses were unavailable, and he had no evidence at hand to warrant a finding of probable cause. He attached an affidavit explaining that a key witness was leaving for medical treatment abroad and other witnesses from Iligan City failed to appear despite subpoenas. The investigator directed Zubiri to submit a list of other available witnesses to allow the investigation to proceed, but Zubiri passed away on November 9, 1969, without complying.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Candido Jumapao should be dismissed due to the complainant’s failure to prosecute and substantiate the charges.

RULING

Yes, the complaint is dismissed. The Supreme Court approved the Provincial Fiscal’s recommendation for dismissal. The legal logic is grounded in the fundamental principle that in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. The case must be established by clear, convincing, and substantial evidence. Here, the complainant actively withdrew his pursuit of the charges by filing a motion to drop the complaint, explicitly stating his lack of evidence and interest in prosecution. His subsequent death rendered any future prosecution by him impossible.
The Court emphasized that it cannot proceed to adjudicate charges based on mere allegations. Without the complainant’s evidence and given his unequivocal desistance, there was no factual basis upon which to evaluate the respondent’s professional conduct or impose disciplinary action. Dismissal was the only proper course, as continuing the proceedings without any supporting evidence would violate due process and the evidentiary standards required in disbarment cases. The resolution underscores that the Court’s disciplinary power must be exercised judiciously and only upon a solid foundation of proof, which was utterly absent here.