RICARDO ACOSTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICANOR SERRANO, RESPONDENT.

In this administrative complaint for malpractice against respondent
Nicanor Serrano, a member of the Philippine Bar, negligence is imputed to
him.  It was alleged in the Affidavit
Complaint of May 10, 1973 filed by complainant Ricardo Acosta that the failure
of respondent to be present at the hearing of the agrarian case against him
resulted in an order of default.  Thus he
lost the case.  To be more specific,
complainant would rely on the reference in an order of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
presided by Judge Agustin C. Bagasao, to the effect that respondent as counsel
for complainant ought to have instructed a trial attorney of the Office of the
Agrarian Counsel at Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija to handle the case for complainant in
view of respondent having to confer with the Secretary of Agrarian Reform that
day, he being the Chief of that office. 
Complainant pointed to this statement in such order:  “The truth is Atty. Serrano neglected to
instruct Atty. Cariazo to appear for the defendant.”^[1]

This Court, on October 15, 1973, issued the following
resolution:  “Considering the
complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Nicanor Serrano on the ground of
malpractice, the Court Resolved to require the respondent to Comment thereon,
within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.”^[2]

It was on November 29, 1973 that respondent filed his
comment.  He denied the allegations of
complainant.  The matter was then
referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation.  Thereafter, on April 26,
1974, there was received in such office an affidavit executed on April 11 of
that year from complainant Acosta, in effect seeking the withdrawal of his
administrative charge against respondent. 
That was the cue for the latter to file his motion to dismiss on April
24, 1974.  The case was set for
hearing.  According to the Report of
Acting Solicitor General Hugo Gutierrez, Jr.,^[3]
dated November 24, 1976, the case was set for hearing on seven different
occasions, the last date being February 9, 1976.  At no time did complainant appear.

Nonetheless, there was in such Report a detailed discussion of
the matter:  “In his sworn
administrative complaint * * * complainant Ricardo Acosta alleges that Atty.
Nicanor Serrano’s non-appearance at the hearing of his case had resulted in
default of his legal rights to the landholdings under litigation in CAR Case
No. 441-C, CAR Branch II-A, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija.  The complainant requests and demands the
immediate disbarment of Atty. Nicanor Serrano. 
He is duty bound to prove his allegation by convincing evidence.  On the last setting of this case on March 16,
1976 respondent strongly manifested that he was reiterating the prayer for the
dismissal of this administrative case against him based on complainant’s
Affidavit dated April 11, 1974 and the repeated failure of the complainant to
appear at the investigation despite due notice. 
Furthermore, respondent justifiably explained in his Comment dated
November 20, 1973 the circumstances of the omission allegedly committed by him.  Respondent explained that he was the Regional
Chief of the Branch Office of the Agrarian Counsel at Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija; that
complainant was absent at the pre-trial conference in which he was declared in
default by the Court * * *; that Atty. Virgilio Cariazo who was the original
counsel of the complainant was transferred to another place and he was replaced
by Atty. Bornon Bauson; that the presence of Atty. Cariazo to take respondent’s
place at the pre-trial conference was sufficient for purposes of his
representation at the said hearing; that due to the oversight of the new
assigned counsel, Atty. Bornon Bauson, he failed to file the notice of appeal
within the reglementary period; that as head of the office in Nueva Ecija,
respondent has tremendous activities to attend; and that they filed a motion
for reconsideration of the order of dismissal of the appeal but was
denied.  In justification of the above
explanation respondent states:  ‘9.  Undersigned had never been recreant to his
duties in the government service.  He had
been Clerk of Court of the Court of Agrarian Relations in 1962, then Trial
Attorney of the defunct Tenancy Mediation Commission, to Special Attorney,
Supervising Special Attorney and Regional Chief of the defunct Office of the
Agrarian Counsel and presently Acting Regional Director of the Citizens Legal
Assistance Office in Region I.  In all of
these stints in the government service, he had never given cause to lower his
prestige as a government official.  In
1969, after serving as Regional Chief of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel in
Region II (Cagayan Valley) for almost four years, he was recipient of a letter
of commendation for exemplary record as such Regional Chief from then Governor
of Land Authority and Chairman of the National Land Reform Council, now
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Hon. Conrado Estrella * *
*.  Earlier, he was recipient of a
Special Commendation by resolution of the National Land Reform Council, then
the highest Council on Land Reform, for accomplishments as such Regional
Chief.  In 1970 he was also a recipient
of a resolution of commendation by the Municipal Council of Anao, Tarlac, for
services rendered to farmers in the area.'”^[4]

The recommendation, in view of the above circumstances and the
settled doctrine that it is incumbent on complainant to prove his charge, was
for the dismissal of the complaint. 
Thus:  “In the instant case,
it is respectfully submitted that complainant had completely lost his interest
in prosecuting the charge against the respondent.  Absent any persuasive indicia of the alleged
misconduct of respondent, the presumption of innocence must prevail.”^[5]

Such recommendation merits the approval of the Court.  No case against respondent has been
proved.  The complaint must be
dismissed.  That is to defer to a settled
doctrine first announced by Justice Malcolm in the 1922 decision of In re
Tionko.^[6] Thus: 
“The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow
only where 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 an
officer of the court in accordance with his oath.”^[7]
There has been, since then, a reiteration of the above principle.^[8]

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Attorney
Nicanor Serrano is hereby dismissed.  Let
a copy of this resolution be entered on his record.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and
Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Order dated June 14, 1972, Annex C to Sworn Affidavit Complaint, 2.

^[2]
Resolution of this Court dated October 15, 1973.

^[3]
He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo C. Nakar, Jr. and Solicitor Rizalino Cusi.

^[4]
Report and Recommendation, 5-7.

^[5]
Ibid, 8.

^[6]
43. Phil. 191.

^[7]
Ibid, 194.

^[8]
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.