G.R. No. A.M. No. 1471 January 11, 1979
Ruby Socorro P. Firman, Salvacion Firman and Alberto Firman vs. Atty. Ismael S. Crisanto

FACTS

Ruby Socorro P. Firman, through a verified complaint dated November 15, 1974, charged respondent Atty. Ismael S. Crisanto with immorality and grossly immoral conduct. She alleged that the respondent, a married man and the family lawyer, seduced her and had carnal relations with her when she was below eighteen years of age. This complaint was supported by her parents, Salvacion and Alberto Firman.
However, in a subsequent handwritten letter dated December 2, 1974, addressed to the Chief Justice, Ruby Socorro P. Firman completely recanted her allegations. She stated that she signed the original complaint under pressure from her father, with the assistance of lawyer Saturnino Parcasio and Judge Renato Fuentes. She declared the contents of the complaint were false and “the product of the imaginations” of her parents and lawyer Parcasio, and she requested that the case be dropped. Despite this recantation, the complainants filed another verified petition for disbarment on April 23, 1975, reiterating the charges of seduction and cohabitation.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ismael S. Crisanto should be dismissed based on the complainants’ desistance and lack of evidence.

RULING

Yes, the complaint is dismissed. The Supreme Court, adopting the recommendation of the Solicitor General, dismissed the case for two primary legal reasons rooted in procedural and evidentiary grounds. First, the complainants’ complete desistance rendered a meaningful investigation impracticable. Alberto Firman, the father, submitted a sworn affidavit of desistance dated March 24, 1976, and testified before the investigating fiscal that he, his wife, and his daughter (who was by then married to another man) had all agreed to withdraw the complaint and adopt a “forgive and forget” attitude. This formal withdrawal by the very parties who initiated the charge deprived the proceedings of the necessary private complainants to pursue and substantiate the allegations.
Second, and decisively, there was a complete absence of credible, substantiating evidence to support the serious charge. The initial complaint was directly contradicted and nullified by Ruby’s own sworn recantation, wherein she explicitly declared the accusations to be fabricated. No other corroborative evidence was presented to counter this retraction or to independently prove the alleged misconduct. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the evidence must be clear, convincing, and preponderant. Given the complainants’ withdrawal and the lack of any supporting proof, the charge could not be sustained. The Court therefore ordered the case dismissed and considered closed.