SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 1770. March 28, 1978.]
IGNACIO REYDADO, Complainant, v. CARMENCITA R. DE CASTRO, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
During the pendency of the disbarment proceeding against respondent, the complainant filed a verified motion for the withdrawal of his complaint alleging that it was that it was an offshot of a misunderstanding between the parties which had "already been amicably settled." The respondent did not register any objection to the said motion
Case dismissed and considered closed.
Case dismissed and considered closed.
SYLLABUS
1. DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS; DISMISSAL. — A disbarment proceeding against a member of the bar will be dismissed where the complainant himself of the complaint on the ground that the same was an offshot of a misunderstanding between the parties which had the "already been amicably settled."
R E S O L U T I O N
AQUINO, J.:
This is a disbarment proceeding against Carmencita R. de Castro who was admitted to the bar in 1963. On June 10, 1977 Ignacio Reydado filed a verified complaint charging Atty. De Castro with deceit or gross misconduct.
He alleged that Atty. De Castro had agreed to file a registration proceeding for his lot, with an area of 5,795 square meters, located in Meycauayan, Bulacan and that the respondent made him sign a document, which he erroneously thought was a contract for professional services but which turned out to be a deed of sale of a 3,000 square-meter portion of his lot in favor of Norma Laperal whom he had never met before.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Respondent’s version in her answer is that she prepared for complainant Reydado on July 9, 1975 a deed of extrajudicial settlement whereby the said lot was adjudicated to the complainant as heir of his uncle, Oligario Frias; that the 3,000 square-meter portion of the lot was sold to respondent’s sister-in-law, Norma Laperal on July 25, 1975 for P8,000.00; that the complainant later tried to cancel the sale; that on December 20, 1976 Mercedes F. Villarica filed with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan an application for the registration in her name of the said lot, and that the complainant and Norma Laperal filed oppositions to the said application.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. At the hearing on February 28, 1978 complainant Reydado filed a verified motion for the withdrawal of his complaint. He alleged that his complaint was an offshoot of a misunderstanding between the parties which had "already been amicably settled." The respondent did not register any objection to the said motion.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.
He alleged that Atty. De Castro had agreed to file a registration proceeding for his lot, with an area of 5,795 square meters, located in Meycauayan, Bulacan and that the respondent made him sign a document, which he erroneously thought was a contract for professional services but which turned out to be a deed of sale of a 3,000 square-meter portion of his lot in favor of Norma Laperal whom he had never met before.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Respondent’s version in her answer is that she prepared for complainant Reydado on July 9, 1975 a deed of extrajudicial settlement whereby the said lot was adjudicated to the complainant as heir of his uncle, Oligario Frias; that the 3,000 square-meter portion of the lot was sold to respondent’s sister-in-law, Norma Laperal on July 25, 1975 for P8,000.00; that the complainant later tried to cancel the sale; that on December 20, 1976 Mercedes F. Villarica filed with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan an application for the registration in her name of the said lot, and that the complainant and Norma Laperal filed oppositions to the said application.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. At the hearing on February 28, 1978 complainant Reydado filed a verified motion for the withdrawal of his complaint. He alleged that his complaint was an offshoot of a misunderstanding between the parties which had "already been amicably settled." The respondent did not register any objection to the said motion.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.
