A.M. No. 1445. October 5, 1976. BENITA A. AGBAYANI, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Benita Agbayani filed a disbarment case against Atty. Jaime V. Agtang. The complaint alleged that the respondent lawyer committed falsehood in a petition for adoption (Special Proceedings No. 4943-III) he filed for his client, Geronimo Reyes. Specifically, it was claimed that Atty. Agtang knowingly alleged in the petition that the adopter, Geronimo Reyes, had no child, despite his knowledge that Reyes had a daughter named Balbina Reyes. This alleged misrepresentation supposedly misled the court into granting the adoption decree. The case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation. During the OSG proceedings, after several postponements, the complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance, stating she was misled into filing the case, had lost interest, and desired to withdraw her complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jaime V. Agtang should be administratively disciplined for alleged falsehood in a petition for adoption.

RULING

The Court dismissed the case and exonerated Atty. Agtang. The legal logic is anchored on the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings and the findings of good faith. In such proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of establishing the lawyer’s misconduct by convincing proof. Here, the complainant failed to discharge this burden. The investigation by the OSG revealed that Atty. Agtang relied in good faith on the representations made by his client, Geronimo Reyes, during a personal interview that he had no children. This was corroborated by the testimony of a disinterested witness, Honorio Tunac, who was present during the interview and heard Reyes make that representation. The complainant’s subsequent affidavit of desistance, wherein she admitted being misled in filing the complaint, further weakened the charge. The OSG also found evidence suggesting the complaint may have been motivated by the fact that Atty. Agtang had represented parties adverse to the complainant’s husband in other cases. Since no clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence was presented to prove that the respondent knowingly made a false assertion with intent to deceive the court, the charge of misconduct could not be sustained. The Court emphasized that the mere allegation of falsehood, unsupported by credible evidence and contradicted by the complainant’s own desistance and the respondent’s corroborated testimony, is insufficient to justify the severe penalty of disbarment or suspension.