Respondent was charge for having notarized an affidavit before the same had been signed by complainant who in fact refused to sign the same. The records of the case, as well as the report of the Solicitor General, show that exoneration of the charge is warranted for the complainant failed to prove that the signature in question is that of Respondent. The Court adopted the recommendation.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AGAINST A LAWYER; DISMISSAL THEREOF FOR FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINANT TO PROSECUTE THE CASE PROPERLY. — Where it is shown that complainant must have had a personal motive in charging respondent with having notarized an affidavit before the same had been signed by the affiant, and he repeatedly failed to appear at the hearing of the case, the same is dismissed and respondent is exonerated of the charge.

Respondent is charged with having notarized an affidavit before the same had been signed by complainant who in fact refused to sign the same. Respondent denied having signed the alleged notarization. Upon proper investigation the Solicitor General has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that the signature in question is that of Respondent.

Going over the records, We find the report of the Solicitor General to be in order. The circumstances on record show that complainant must have a personal motive in charging respondent but failed to prosecute the case properly. He repeatedly failed to appear at the hearing. As a matter of fact, his cross-examination could not be finished because of his absence, and the case had to be submitted for decision without being testimony being completed.

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and respondent is exonerated.

Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.