SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 1270. February 27, 1976.]
VICTORIANA BAUTISTA and FELIPE BUCAO, Complainants, v. ATTY. MACARIO G. YDIA, Respondent.
Felipe Bucao on his behalf as complainant.
Tanopo & Serafica for the Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
For failure respondent to take an appeal from an adverse decision in case handled by him on behalf of complainants, the latter filed a complaint for disciplinary action against him, alleging professional misconduct. Respondent claimed that he desisted from making the appeal upon instruction of one of the complainants The Solicitor General, to whom the complaint was referred for investigation, report and recommendation, concluded that the charge has not been proven and recommended its dismissal. The Supreme Court, after going over the report and the evidence presented by the parties concurred with the investigator’s findings.
Case dismissed.
Case dismissed.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. — An attorney is presumed innocent of the charge against him until the contrary is proved by convincing evidence.
R E S O L U T I O N
BARREDO, J.:
Complaint for disciplinary action against respondent, Atty. Macario G. Ydia, alleging professional misconduct in that said respondent failed to take the necessary appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in the cases handled by him on behalf of complainants. Respondent’s defense is that he desisted from making the appeal upon instructions of complainant Felipe Bucao himself.
The issue of fact thus emerging from the complaint and answer was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation and appropriate recommendation. After due hearing, wherein complainants and respondent submitted their respective evidence, the Solicitor General submits that the charge has not been proven and this case should be dismissed.cralawnad
We have gone over the report of the Solicitor General and the record of the evidence presented by the parties and We are satisfied that indeed it is safe to conclude that it was with the knowledge and consent of Felipe Bucao that respondent desisted from taking further action in the case of complainants, convinced as they were that an appeal from the adverse decision of the trial court would be futile. In any event, there is, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, a presumption that an attorney is innocent of the charge against him until the contrary is proved by convincing evidence. Complainants’ evidence in this case does not appear to meet such standard.
Wherefore, this case is dismissed.
Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
The issue of fact thus emerging from the complaint and answer was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation and appropriate recommendation. After due hearing, wherein complainants and respondent submitted their respective evidence, the Solicitor General submits that the charge has not been proven and this case should be dismissed.cralawnad
We have gone over the report of the Solicitor General and the record of the evidence presented by the parties and We are satisfied that indeed it is safe to conclude that it was with the knowledge and consent of Felipe Bucao that respondent desisted from taking further action in the case of complainants, convinced as they were that an appeal from the adverse decision of the trial court would be futile. In any event, there is, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, a presumption that an attorney is innocent of the charge against him until the contrary is proved by convincing evidence. Complainants’ evidence in this case does not appear to meet such standard.
Wherefore, this case is dismissed.
Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
