HERMITO SIERVO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JUAN E. INFANTE, RESPONDENT.

Siervo versus Infante

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Hermito Siervo against Judge Juan Infante, who was, before he ascended the bench, the counsel of the complainant's late father in a civil case for consolidation of ownership. The complainant charges the respondent with grave misconduct, alleging that the respondent deliberately caused his father's case to be lost because the respondent supposedly had an arrangement to buy the litigated land from the winning party and because the family did not pay him professional fees. The case matters because it is a compact restatement of how carefully the Supreme Court guards the power to disbar: the lawyer is presumed innocent, and the power is exercised only in clear cases of misconduct.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court, which is the proper forum for disbarment proceedings. After the respondent submitted his answer denying the charges and the complainant filed his reply, the Court referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The investigating fiscal recommended dismissal, and the Solicitor General concurred and submitted his report recommending dismissal of the charges. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative jurisdiction.

Facts

Sometime in 1966, the respondent, then a municipal judge, acted as counsel for Sales Siervo, the complainant's father, in a civil case against Estanislao Cerda for consolidation of ownership. Cerda had bought a parcel of land from Sales Siervo under a sale with a right to repurchase, and neither Sales Siervo nor his heirs redeemed the land within the redemption period. The trial court, in a decision dated March 19, 1969, allowed the consolidation and declared Cerda the owner of the property.

The respondent, as counsel, received the decision on March 25, 1969. Within the period to appeal, he advised the Siervos that they could reacquire the land either by appealing the decision or by redeeming it for 400 pesos. The widow of Sales Siervo told him that they could not afford to appeal and had no money to redeem. The Siervos then consulted another lawyer, who told them he knew of no way to help them. From 1969, there was complete silence over the case.

On June 18, 1974, almost five years later, Hermito Siervo filed this complaint, claiming that the respondent intentionally lost the case because of an alleged arrangement to buy the land from Cerda, and because the family did not pay him professional fees. The respondent denied the charges and submitted an affidavit of Cerda, who stated that he is presently occupying the land as owner, that he had no agreement with the respondent to buy the land should he win, and that the respondent never offered to purchase it.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent, as counsel, is guilty of grave misconduct warranting disbarment or suspension for allegedly causing the loss of his client's case.
• Whether or not the evidence presented overcomes the legal presumption of innocence of an attorney charged in a disbarment proceeding.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it applies the settled rule on the object of disbarment proceedings and the presumption of innocence of the attorney. The Court states the governing principle as follows:

The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law persons whose disregard for their oath of office have proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar.

This principle frames the entire inquiry: the proceeding is protective, not punitive, and so the ground must be clear and convincing.

The Court also states the caution with which the power must be exercised:

Thus, the power to disbar attorneys ought always to be exercised with great caution, and only in clear cases of misconduct which seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.

This standard governs the quantum of proof required before the ultimate penalty may be imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no convincing proof that the respondent caused the loss of the case. There was no showing that he omitted to present evidence in his possession that could have won the case and prevented the consolidation. The claim that he deliberately lost the case to acquire the land was contradicted by the absence of proof that the case could have been won and by the undisputed affidavit of Cerda that he remains the owner and occupant of the land. The Court also noted that the Siervos were not serious about reacquiring the land, since they could have raised 400 pesos to redeem it or taken an appeal, and that it took them almost five years to claim they had been wronged.

On the second issue, the Court held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved, and that only when this presumption is overcome by convincing proof of misconduct should the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension follow. The evidence did not measure up to this standard.

Doctrine

Three rules a bar candidate should retain. First, an attorney is presumed innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved; the presumption must be overcome by convincing proof before disbarment or suspension may follow. Second, the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Third, the object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the attorney as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against the respondent for lack of merit.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the power to disbar is exercised with great caution, and only in clear cases of misconduct, because the attorney is presumed innocent until convincing proof overcomes that presumption. Examiners use this case to test the protective purpose of disbarment and the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings against lawyers.