Francisco Tejada, complainant, vs. Vicente Acsay, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Francisco Tejada charged lawyer Vicente Acsay with negligence amounting to gross misconduct. Tejada alleged that in May or June 1967, he paid Acsay P200 to file a collection case against Enrique de Leon for a P8,000 debt. Acsay did not file the suit. Tejada claimed Acsay fraternized with De Leon, and by the time Tejada engaged another lawyer in May 1969 to file the case, a writ of attachment could not be enforced as De Leon had already sold his property in March 1968.
In his detailed answer, respondent Acsay denied negligence. He asserted that, with Tejada’s knowledge, he pursued extrajudicial measures to secure an out-of-court settlement from De Leon, including sending demand letters. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent lawyer Vicente Acsay is administratively liable for negligence or gross misconduct in handling complainant’s collection case.
RULING
The Court dismissed the administrative case. The legal logic for dismissal rests on the complainant’s own desistance and the insufficiency of evidence to sustain the charge. During the investigation, Tejada filed a motion to withdraw his complaint, ratifying it under oath. He expressly stated his satisfaction that Acsay had not been lax, negligent, or unmindful of his duties and noted that the underlying collection case had been compromised.
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Here, the complainant retracted his allegations and affirmed the respondent’s version of events, which detailed active efforts to settle the matter. The Court, adopting the Solicitor General’s recommendation, found the withdrawal to be voluntary and the original charge unsubstantiated. Dismissal is proper when the complainant fails to prosecute or, as in this case, actively disavows the complaint, leaving no factual basis for a finding of professional misconduct. The case was ordered closed.
