SECOND DIVISION
[Adm. Case No. 1660. June 29, 1982.]
TEOFISTA G. FLORES VDA. DE CHENG, Complainant, v. BENJAMIN O. CARLOS, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent, her lawyer, for not complying with his commitment to work for the reacquisition of her Philippine citizenship despite payment of P1,500.00 as professional fee.
In his answer, respondent alleged that his associate to whom he delegated the task with complainant’s consent died before completion of the work. Respondent manifested that he was willing to finalize the proceedings. The complaint was submitted to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation and was several times set for hearing, although no hearing was held. Thereafter, complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance, stating that the filing of the complaint was due to misunderstanding and that she and respondent had patched up their differences.
The Supreme Court held that in view of the affidavit of desistance, complainant rendered it impossible for the Court to take any disciplinary action against the respondent since there is no evidence in the record that he had committed any wrongdoing justifying his disbarment or suspension.
Case dismissed.
In his answer, respondent alleged that his associate to whom he delegated the task with complainant’s consent died before completion of the work. Respondent manifested that he was willing to finalize the proceedings. The complaint was submitted to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation and was several times set for hearing, although no hearing was held. Thereafter, complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance, stating that the filing of the complaint was due to misunderstanding and that she and respondent had patched up their differences.
The Supreme Court held that in view of the affidavit of desistance, complainant rendered it impossible for the Court to take any disciplinary action against the respondent since there is no evidence in the record that he had committed any wrongdoing justifying his disbarment or suspension.
Case dismissed.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEY; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; DISMISSED BASED ON AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE. — In view of the desistance, the complainant rendered it impossible for this Court to take any disciplinary action against Respondent. There is no evidence in the record that he had committed any wrongdoing justifying his disbarment or suspension.
R E S O L U T I O N
AQUINO, J.:
Teofista G. Flores Vda. de Cheng in a verified complaint dated August 26, 1976 prayed that disciplinary action be taken against lawyer Benjamin O. Carlos (admitted to the bar in 1957) for not having complied with this commitment made in January, 1976 to work for the reacquisition of complainant’s Philippine citizenship notwithstanding the fact that he had already been paid his professional fee of P1,500.
Respondent Carlos in his answer alleged that with Mrs. Cheng’s consent he delegated to his associate, Arturo C. Zialcita, the task of working for her repatriation papers and Zialcita allegedly performed that task but was not able to complete the work because of his death. Carlos manifested that he was willing to finalize the proceedings for Mrs. Cheng’s repatriation.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The investigator set the case for hearing several times but no hearing was held.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On May 5, 1977, Mrs. Cheng, assisted by counsel, submitted an affidavit of desistance wherein she stated that her complaint resulted from a misunderstanding and that she and Carlos had patched up their differences.
In view of that desistance, the complainant rendered it impossible for this Court to take any disciplinary action against the Respondent. There is no evidence in the record that he had committed any wrongdoing justifying his disbarment or suspension.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Respondent Carlos in his answer alleged that with Mrs. Cheng’s consent he delegated to his associate, Arturo C. Zialcita, the task of working for her repatriation papers and Zialcita allegedly performed that task but was not able to complete the work because of his death. Carlos manifested that he was willing to finalize the proceedings for Mrs. Cheng’s repatriation.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The investigator set the case for hearing several times but no hearing was held.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On May 5, 1977, Mrs. Cheng, assisted by counsel, submitted an affidavit of desistance wherein she stated that her complaint resulted from a misunderstanding and that she and Carlos had patched up their differences.
In view of that desistance, the complainant rendered it impossible for this Court to take any disciplinary action against the Respondent. There is no evidence in the record that he had committed any wrongdoing justifying his disbarment or suspension.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
