A.C. No. 1343. August 06, 1980
PAUL T. NAIDAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. VALENTIN C. GUANIO AND AUGUSTO SANCHEZ, RESPONDENTS.
AQUINO, J.:
Respondent Sanchez in his answer denied the charges. He alleged that Naidas filed this disbarment proceeding because (1) Sanchez “continued a criminal prosecution” for usurpation of real rights against Naidas, (2) Sanchez was the lawyer of Reynoso in the ejectment suit wherein Naidas was adjudged liable to pay damages, (3) Sanchez was the lawyer in the theft case filed against Naidas and (4) another ejectment suit would be filed against Naidas.
Respondent Guanio in his answer also denied the charges. He adopted the answer of Sanchez insofar as relevant to his (Guanio’s) defense and branded Naidas’ complaint as motivated by “pure vindictiveness”.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
On May 9, 1980, while the case was still pending investigation, Naidas filed a manifestation wherein he said that after reading respondents’ answers he came to the conclusion that they might have “acted improperly but not with malice and deceit”. He confessed that he “had lost interest in the matter” and that he had no intention of continuing the prosecution of his complaint.
In view of that manifestation, the Solicitor General’s Office, as directed by this Court, returned the record of this case.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, (Chairman), and Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero,* and De Castro,* JJ., concur.
* Were designated to sit in the Second Division.