WENCESLAO (BEN) ZUBIRI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CANDIDO JUMAPAO, RESPONDENT.

On June 21, 1968, Wenceslao Zubiri filed a verified
complaint with this Court against respondent Candido Jumapao, praying, on the basis of the facts alleged
therein, that said respondent be disbarred.

On October 10 of the same year, respondent filed a verified answer controverting the
charges made against him.

On November 15 of the same year, we referred the case for
investigation to the Office of
the Solicitor General
who, upon motion of the complainant to have the hearings of the case held in Cebu
City for the convenience of the parties concerned and their witnesses, referred
the case to the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu for
investigation.  On November 11, 1970,
said Provincial Fiscal submitted his
report and recommendation, the pertinent portions of which are quoted as follows:

“With due notice to both parties concerned, the investigation
was set for April 8, 1969 in the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu, Provincial
Capitol, Cebu City. 
Parties not being ready to present evidence on said date, the
investigation was reset for May 10 of the same year.  On May 10, 1969 both parties, represented by
their lawyers, jointly moved for postponement of the investigation to June 10,
11 and 12, 1969, on the ground that they needed more time to prepare evidence
to be presented
in connection with the complaint and the answer thereto, respectively.  On June 10, 1969, after a brief
discussion on the procedure to be taken in the fact-finding investigation and
the necessity of issuing notices and/or subpoena duces
tecum to witnesses of the complainant, the hearing of
the administrative case was again reset for July 24 and 25, 1969.  On July 24, 1969 the investigation of the
case had to be postponed once more to August 8, 1969, in view of the fact that Atty. Napoleon Dejoras, one of the lawyers for the complainant, had left for Manila for an important matter and could not
be present to represent the complainant.

On August 8, 1969,
the complainant, instead of presenting evidence to sustain the charges embodied
in the complaint filed with the Supreme Court, submitted a motion entitled motion
to drop complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex X and made an integral part
of this report, stating in substance that (a) said complainant is ‘no longer
interested in prosecuting the case,’ (b) his witnesses ‘are no longer
available,’ and (c) there is no evidence at hand ‘to warrant finding of
probable cause.’ (What complainant probably meant is that he could not present
substantial evidence to prove the main recitals of the complaint).  Complainant Wenceslao
(Ben) Zubiri moved for the ‘dropping or dis­missal’
of the administrative case against Atty. Candido N. Jumapao.  Attached to
the said motion is an affidavit – subscribed and sworn to before the Clerk of
Court of the Court of First Instance of Cebu –
executed by the same complainant stating that one of his witnesses, a certain
Dr. Pedro Alda, is ‘no longer in a position to
testify in view of the fact that he is leaving for the United States for
medical treatment, ‘and that his other witnesses from Iligan
City have failed to come to Cebu City to testify in
spite of repeated issuance of notices and subpoena duces
tecum which were served upon them.

In spite of the motion to dismiss filed by the complainant, the
latter was directed to furnish or submit to this investigator a list of other
available witnesses who may have knowledge of the facts constitutive of the
charges embodied in the complaint, so that
a fact-finding investigation may proceed even in the absence of the said
complainant.  Incidentally, the
complainant died on November 9, 1969 in Cebu City of ‘acute coronary insufficiency’
without having submitted a list of witnesses who may be able to testify
against the respondent.

For failure of the complainant
to prosecute the case and substantially prove the charges embodied in the complaint,
the undersigned investigator hereby respect­fully recommends that the said
complaint be dismissed.”

In view of the facts contained in the report quoted above, we
have no alternative but to approve the recommendation therein made.  Consequently, the present case is dismissed.

Concepcion,  C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.