A.M. No. 1383. March 4, 1976. RICARDO ROJAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. DULCESIMO P. TAMPUS, respondent.
FACTS

Ricardo Rojas, a businessman from Iligan City, filed a verified complaint for malpractice against Atty. Dulcesimo Tampus. The complaint stemmed from Criminal Case No. 9213-AF, a perjury case filed by Rojas against Alfonso Delator, where Atty. Tampus served as defense counsel. Rojas alleged that Atty. Tampus engaged in tactics causing interminable postponements of the hearings. Specifically, Rojas charged that on August 7, 1974, Atty. Tampus moved for a postponement on the ground that he needed to attend a preliminary investigation at the Office of the Provincial Fiscal in Cagayan de Oro City. Upon Rojas’s inquiry, the Fiscal reportedly stated that no such investigation was scheduled, leading Rojas to believe the postponement was sought under false pretenses.
The case was referred for investigation to the Solicitor General, who delegated the reception of evidence to the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Norte. During the hearing on March 20, 1975, complainant Rojas, assisted by counsel, withdrew his complaint. This withdrawal came after Atty. Tampus explained that he did indeed go to Cagayan de Oro City on the stated date for a scheduled preliminary investigation, but the investigation was not held. This explanation was corroborated by the affidavits of Assistant Fiscal Josefina C. Parrado and Atty. Ruperto P. Eltanal.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Dulcesimo P. Tampus is administratively liable for malpractice based on allegations of seeking postponements under false grounds, thereby causing undue delay in the proceedings.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative case against Atty. Tampus. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in administrative proceedings and the evaluation of the evidence presented. The Solicitor General, after a thorough review of the record, concluded that no evidence substantiated the charge that respondent unreasonably delayed the trial. The Court accorded weight to this finding. Critically, the complainant himself withdrew the charge after receiving and verifying the respondent’s explanation, which was supported by corroborating affidavits from credible sources, including a fiscal. This withdrawal and corroboration significantly undermined the basis of the complaint.
The ruling emphasizes that motions for postponement, while potentially dilatory, are not inherently unethical if based on meritorious grounds. The record indicated that the trial court granted the postponements, which creates a presumption that the grounds presented were found to be valid. Without clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or deceit—which was absent here as the explanation for the August 7 postponement was proven truthful—an attorney cannot be held administratively liable merely for utilizing procedural mechanisms available in litigation. The dismissal affirms that the Court requires solid proof of ethical breach, not mere suspicion or unsubstantiated allegation, to impose disciplinary sanction.