MAXIMO SANTIAGO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARTIN B. BUSTAMANTE, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative complaint against respondent Martin Bustamante, a member of the Philippine Bar, for dishonesty
and falsification of a notarial document.  According to complainant, Maximo
Santiago, it was made to appear by respondent that a certain party, Victoriana
Santiago, his sister, executed a special power of attorney in the presence of
respondent when such was not the case. 
In the answer of respondent, he specifically denied the allegations of
fact made by complainant and asserted that the preparation of the special power
of attorney in question took place in the presence of both complainant and his
sister, who were introduced to him by the late Mayor Maria Garcia of San
Manuel, Isabela. 
As special defenses, he alleged that he had been a notary for fifteen
years in good standing without any complaint having been lodged against him and
that complainant, an ex-convict, was motivated to file the charge against him
only because of his refusal to testify falsely to help complainant in a pending
criminal case.

The matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation,
report, and recommendation.  The case was
scheduled for hearing by the then Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra
on September 5 and 6, 1968.  Before such
date, counsel for complainant filed a motion for the postponement of the
investigation.  Subsequently on September
6, 1973, complainant filed a motion to dismiss attaching thereto an affidavit
of desistance, wherein he alleged that he charged respondent with the
falsification of a notarial document only as a
retaliatory measure, his sister having filed a criminal complaint against him
and that with the dismissal of such complaint, he had lost interest in
continuing with the administrative case against respondent.  As a result, no evidence whatsoever is on
record against the latter.

The report of Solicitor General Estelito
Mendoza was submitted to this Court on April 30, 1976.  The dismissal of the case was recommended.

The Solicitor General saw no reason for proceeding further after
a study of the pleadings filed with him. 
It was apparent that respondent did get involved in the bitter
differences between complainant and his sister, which led the latter to
prosecute him.  When she herself realized
that the accusation was without basis, she moved to dismiss.  That led complainant, no doubt satisfied with
this turn of events, to do the same with respect to the charge against
respondent, an affidavit of desistance being filed.  The Solicitor General likewise noted as a
circumstance in favor of respondent that he had “always been present each
time this case was set for hearing and has constantly requested for an early
disposition of the case thus filed against him.”^[1]

It was his considered view therefore “that there can be no
valid reason for proceeding with the investigation of the case.”^[2]
Relying further on “the legal presumption that a lawyer is innocent of the
charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved and that he
regularly performed his duty as an officer of the Court in accordance with his
oath,”^[3]
he recommended “that the complaint should be dismissed.”^[4]

Such a recommendation merits approval.  That is in accordance with the leading case
of In re Tionko^[5]
cited by the Solicitor General.  That
1922 opinion of Justice Malcolm had been relied upon subsequently in a number
of cases. ^[6]  There is likewise this relevant excerpt from
the opinion of the then Justice, now Chief Justice, Castro
in Go v. Candoy:^[7]
“It is quite elementary that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant.  To be
made the basis for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge against him
must be established by convincing proof. 
The record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the
exercise by this Court of its disciplinary powers.  The dubious character of the act done as well
as of the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated.”^[8]

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Martin B. Bustamante, a member of the
Philippine Bar, is dismissed.  Let a copy
of this resolution be entered on his record.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino,
and Martin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.

^[1]
Report and Recommendation of the Solicitor General, 5.

^[2]
Ibid.

^[3]
Ibid, 5-6.

^[4]
Ibid, 6.

^[5]
43 Phil. 191 (1922).

^[6]
Cf. Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil. 293 (1936); De
Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 (1939); In re
Attorney C. T. Oliva, 103 Phil. 312 (1958); Blanza v. Arcangel, Adm. Case No. 492, Sept. 5, 1967, 21 SCRA 1; Magno v. Gellada, Adm. Case No. 767, Dec. 20, 1971, 42 SCRA 549; Misamin v. San
Juan, Adm. Case No. 1418, Aug. 31, 1976, 72 SCRA 491;
Maderazo v. Del Rosario, Adm. Case No. 1267,
Oct. 29, 1976

^[7]
L-27516, October 19, 1967, 21 SCRA 438.

^[8]
Ibid, 442.