TEOFISTA G. FLORES VDA. DE CHENG, COMPLAINANT, VS. BENJAMIN O. CARLOS, RESPONDENT.

Flores Vda. de Cheng versus Carlos

The Case

This is an administrative case for disciplinary action against a member of the Bar. Teofista G. Flores Vda. de Cheng filed a verified complaint against lawyer Benjamin O. Carlos, asking that disciplinary action be taken against him for failing to comply with a commitment he made to work for the reacquisition of her Philippine citizenship, even though he had already been paid his professional fee. The case matters because it shows how a disbarment or suspension proceeding stands when the complainant herself later withdraws the complaint and the record contains no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her verified complaint directly with the Supreme Court. The respondent filed his answer. The Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The investigator set the case for hearing several times, but no hearing was ever held. The complainant then submitted an affidavit of desistance. On that record the Supreme Court resolved the case itself, without any intermediate court ruling.

Facts

Teofista G. Flores Vda. de Cheng filed a verified complaint dated August 26, 1976 against lawyer Benjamin O. Carlos, who had been admitted to the Bar in 1957. She alleged that in January 1976 he had committed himself to work for the reacquisition of her Philippine citizenship, and that he had already been paid his professional fee of 1,500 pesos, yet he did not comply with that commitment.

In his answer, Carlos alleged that, with Mrs. Cheng's consent, he had delegated the task of working for her repatriation papers to his associate, Arturo C. Zialcita. He claimed that Zialcita performed the task but could not 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. On May 5, 1977, Mrs. Cheng, assisted by counsel, submitted an affidavit of desistance. In it she stated that her complaint resulted from a misunderstanding and that she and Carlos had patched up their differences.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent lawyer may be disbarred or suspended on the complaint that he failed to comply with his commitment to work for the complainant's repatriation after receiving his professional fee.
• Whether or not the complainant's affidavit of desistance, in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing in the record, bars the Court from taking disciplinary action against the respondent.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the Court's power over members of the Bar and on the absence of evidence of wrongdoing. The text states the governing principle in these words:

There is no evidence in the record that he had committed any wrongdoing justifying his disbarment or suspension.

That sentence bears on the case because it fixes the standard the Court applied: disciplinary action requires proof of wrongdoing, and here the record contained none.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not find the respondent liable for any wrongdoing. The record contained no evidence that he had committed any act justifying his disbarment or suspension. His explanation was that the work had been delegated with the complainant's consent to an associate who died before completing it, and he expressed willingness to finalize the repatriation proceedings.

On the second issue, the Court held that the desistance made disciplinary action impossible. Because the complainant withdrew her complaint, the Court could not take any disciplinary action against the respondent. The Court put the point plainly:

In view of that desistance, the complainant rendered it impossible for this Court to take any disciplinary action against the respondent.

The Court therefore dismissed the case and considered it closed.

Doctrine

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended only upon evidence of wrongdoing. Where the record shows no such evidence, no disciplinary action lies. The rule the Bar candidate should retain is this: disbarment and suspension require proof of misconduct, and the Court will not impose them on a bare complaint.

A complainant's affidavit of desistance does not by itself erase misconduct, but where the complainant withdraws the charge and the record is empty of proof, the Court cannot proceed. The Court's language is the anchor: there must be evidence in the record of wrongdoing justifying disbarment or suspension. Without it, the administrative case must be dismissed.

Disposition

The case was dismissed and considered closed, with no disciplinary action taken against the respondent.

Remember This

Memorize the line that no disbarment or suspension may rest on a record without evidence of wrongdoing. Examiners use this case where a complainant desists and the record is bare, to test whether a candidate knows that disciplinary liability requires proof of misconduct.