Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FERNANDO, C.J.:

The matter was then referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. In the investigation conducted by the Office of the Solicitor General, there was only one witness, complainant herself. She gave oral testimony and submitted certain documents as her evidence. ¹

Respondent Palma, testified that in 1972, Florentino Maliwat hired the spouses Desiderio Nava and Flaviana (Tioson) Nava caretakers of his (Maliwat's) coconut plantation at Tanay, Rizal. Their negligence in the performance of their duties resulted in the burning of the coconut plantation under their care. Maliwat then dismissed them and placed one Gaudencio Delfin in charge thereof. Due to her resentment and her suspicion that Delfin was the cause of the termination of their employment, Flaviana filed several cases against Delfin, one for theft, another for attempted homicide, two cases for malicious mischief, and the last case for illegal possession of firearms. In all such cases respondent Palma appeared as counsel for Delfin. ²

The Report and Recommendation was submitted by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza ³ on May 18, 1981. After a of the evidence for both complainant and respondent, it was then stated that at no time did complainant point to respondent as being one of those persons who allegedly forced her to sign documents the contents of which were never disclosed to her — this despite the presence of the latter throughout the investigation. The first time she mentioned Gaudencio Delfin, Sefronio Cinco, and a certain Ben as the persons who made her sign. The second time she just referred to three persons without naming them as again being responsible for her signing a document the contents of which were unknown to her. Then came this portion of the findings: "On the other hand, that Lots Nos. 6, 7, 12 and 18 were freely disposed of by Desiderio Nava (with the consent of Flaviana Tioson Nava and Jose Nava (with the consent of Virginia Lancha) was amply shown by the testimony of Jonathan Mariano, who was a witness to the deeds conveying the said lots to Godofredo Pineda (tsn. pp. 22-40, December 2, 1977). In fact, as testified by the respondent, Desiderio Nava was a witness for Godofredo Pineda in the land registration case filed by him in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (tsn., p. 12, January 17, 1978). Jose Nava and Desiderio Nava were named as adjoining owners in Pineda's Application For Registration Of Title (Exhibit E; Exhibit 6). Yet no one of them opposed the application. This gives some credence to Atty. Palma's assertion that the criminal cases filed by Desiderio Nava against Gaudencio Delfin, as well as the instant disbarment case, are harassment cases which were filed by her out of resentment. At all events we are not persuaded that the evidence on record sufficiently establish the allegation of the complaint." ⁴

The recommendation was for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment. It commends itself for approval. The force of the evidence against respondent member of the Philippine Bar calls for no other conclusion. The complaint must be dismissed. So the controlling decision in Re Tionko, ⁵ a 1922 decision, with Justice Malcolm as ponente, mandates. Thus: "The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only when there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as officer of the court in accordance with his oath." ⁶ The latest case citing Tionko is Flores v. Duque, ⁷ the resolution of which was promulgated only on March 18, of this year. That is fourteenth in the last six years alone. ⁸

WHEREFORE, the administrative case against Atty. Cesar Palma is dismissed. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on his records.

Footnotes