JOSEFINA M. ORTEGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ERNESTO F. RIVERA, RESPONDENT.

Petitioner Josefina M. Ortega seeks the disbarment of respondent Ernesto
F. Rivera upon the ground that, having had carnal knowledge of her, under
promise of marriage, in consequence of which she became pregnant, respondent
refused to marry her.

In his answer, respondent denied having courted and proposed or
promised marriage to petitioner, or having had any intimacy with her or caused
her to be pregnant.

The matter having been referred, for investigation, report and
recommendation, to the Solicitor General, the latter submitted his report
stating:

“This case was originally set for investigation on May 20 and
26, 1970 but both hearings were cancelled upon the written motion of the
complainant and the same were forthwith reset for July 15 and 17, 1970.  Upon failure of the complainant to again
appear on July 15, 1970 on the ground that she is indisposed and her request
for the cancellation of the hearing set for July 17, 1970, the investigation of
this case was reset anew for August 12 and 14, 1970.  Said hearings and others subsequent thereto
were also cancelled upon the request of the counsel for the complainant because
of the inability of the latter to appear for one reason or another.

“At the hearing scheduled for this afternoon, February 8, 1971
at 2:30 o’clock, counsel for the complainant appeared with the affidavit signed
by the complainant dated January 28, 1971 stating that she is ‘voluntarily,
freely, without threats, intimidation, promises, withdrawing my complaint
and/or charges for disbarment against Atty. Ernesto F. Rivera, which I filed
because of misunderstanding.’

“Malpractice or the unprofessional conduct of a lawyer being
impressed with public interest, the respondent in a case of disbarment may
still be proceeded against despite the desistance of the complainant.  But considering that complainant in this
case, Josefina M. Ortega, on whose testimony the successful prosecution of the
instant case hinges, does not wish to press her suit any further, the
undersigned do not believe that the allegation of the complaint against the
respondent can be substantiated.  We
accordingly recommend the dismissal of this case and the exoneration of the respondent.”

In line with the recommendation of the Solicitor General, this
case is, accordingly, dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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