ERIBERTO H. DECENA, PETITIONER, VS. CELESTINO M. DE LEON, RESPONDENT.

Decena versus De Leon

The Case

This is a disbarment case. Eriberto H. Decena filed a complaint against Attorney Celestino M. de Leon, charging him with immorality — specifically, that the respondent is living with a woman who is not his wife. The case matters to a Bar candidate not for any grand ruling on lawyer discipline, but for the opposite reason: it shows what happens when the complainant himself abandons the charge. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint because there was no evidence to support it, and the complainant had expressly lost interest in prosecuting. It is a quiet but useful reminder that in administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and that burden cannot survive abandonment.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed sometime in 1967 or 1968. The respondent filed his answer denying the charge. By a resolution of the Supreme Court dated October 12, 1967, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General assigned the case to Solicitor Tomas M. Dilig, who set the investigation for hearing on several dates. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared despite due notice, and the hearings were reset repeatedly. On November 29, 1972, the petitioner appeared before the Solicitor and filed a manifestation and motion asking that the case be dismissed. The Solicitor General issued his report dated December 6, 1972, recommending dismissal. The case then came before the Supreme Court, which resolved it in a decision dated December 20, 1972.

Facts

Eriberto H. Decena filed a complaint for disbarment against Attorney Celestino M. de Leon, alleging immorality — that the respondent was living with a woman who was not his wife. The respondent answered, denying the charge.

The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The assigned Solicitor summoned both parties to appear on October 10, 1972, at one o'clock in the afternoon, to present their evidence. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared despite due notice. The investigation was reset for November 21 and 22, 1972, at one o'clock in the afternoon. Again, both parties failed to appear despite due notice. The investigation was reset one last time for January 17 and 18, 1973, at one o'clock in the afternoon.

On November 29, 1972, the petitioner appeared before the Solicitor and filed a manifestation and motion requesting dismissal. He stated that the case had been filed sometime in 1967 or 1968, or four years or more had lapsed; that the case arose out of a misunderstanding between him and the respondent during the hearing in a criminal case before the Municipal Court of Kabankalan, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental; that due to the length of time that had lapsed, he had no way of contacting his witnesses, who could no longer be located; and that he was no longer interested in further prosecuting the case. The Solicitor General found these grounds well taken and recommended dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not the disbarment complaint against Attorney Celestino M. de Leon should be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has lost interest in prosecuting the case and can no longer locate his witnesses.
• Whether or not the charge of immorality is supported by evidence sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against the respondent.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the procedural posture of an administrative complaint for disbarment and on the absence of evidence. The governing principle applied is that the complainant bears the burden of proving the charge, and where he abandons the case and no evidence is presented, the complaint must be dismissed. No verbatim provision is quoted in the decision text, so none is reproduced here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the recommendation of the Solicitor General well founded. The petitioner himself moved for dismissal, citing the lapse of four years or more since the filing, the loss of contact with his witnesses, and his own loss of interest in further prosecuting the case. The Court gave weight to these grounds and to the Solicitor General's recommendation that the case be dismissed.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no evidence to support the charge. The petitioner and the respondent both failed to appear at the scheduled investigations despite due notice, and no evidence was ever presented. The Court therefore dismissed the case. The ruling is simple and procedural: an administrative charge of immorality against a lawyer cannot stand without proof, and the complainant's abandonment of the case leaves the Court with nothing to act upon.

Doctrine

A disbarment complaint is dismissed where the complainant abandons the charge and no evidence is presented to support it. The complainant bears the burden of proving the alleged misconduct, and the Court will not impose discipline on a lawyer on the basis of an unproven accusation. Where the complainant himself moves for dismissal on the ground of loss of interest and inability to locate witnesses, and the Solicitor General recommends dismissal, the Court will dismiss the case for lack of evidence. The principle is tied to the absence of any quoted provision: the case stands for the rule that no evidence, no disbarment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment complaint against Attorney Celestino M. de Leon for lack of evidence, finding the recommendation of the Solicitor General well founded.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: no evidence, no disbarment — a complainant who abandons his charge leaves the Court with nothing to act upon. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in administrative cases against lawyers and the effect of a complainant's desistance on a disbarment complaint.