AM 1363; (September, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 1363 September 28, 1976
HERMITO SIERVO, complainant, vs. JUDGE JUAN E. INFANTE, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Hermito Siervo charged respondent Judge Juan E. Infante, then a practicing attorney, with grave misconduct in a disbarment case. The charge stemmed from Judge Infante’s representation of Sales Siervo (Hermito’s deceased father) in a civil case for consolidation of ownership filed by Estanislao Cerda. The property was sold under a pacto de retro, and the Siervos failed to redeem it within the stipulated period. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Cerda, declaring him the owner. Respondent, as counsel, received the decision and advised the Siervos they could either appeal or redeem the land by paying P400.00. The Siervos informed him they could afford neither option. Years later, Hermito Siervo alleged that respondent intentionally lost the case because he had an arrangement to purchase the land from Cerda and because the Siervos did not pay professional fees.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Juan E. Infante should be disbarred for alleged grave misconduct in handling Civil Case No. 91, which resulted in an adverse judgment against his client.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the charges for lack of merit. The legal logic rests on the insufficiency of evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded to attorneys and the failure to prove that the adverse judgment resulted from respondent’s misconduct. The Court concurred with the Solicitor General’s investigation, which found no convincing proof to sustain the allegations. First, the claim of a secret arrangement for respondent to buy the land was contradicted by Cerda’s affidavit stating no such agreement existed and that he remained the owner and occupant. Second, the documentary evidence (the deed of sale) and trial court findings clearly established the transaction as a valid pacto de retro sale. The Siervos failed to redeem within the period or seek reformation of the contract. There was no showing that respondent neglected to present available evidence or arguments that could have altered the case’s outcome. The Court emphasized that disbarment is a severe measure to protect the public and the courts, requiring clear proof of misconduct affecting a lawyer’s fitness. The complainant’s evidence did not meet this stringent standard.