Facts:

In the administrative case of Jose A. Arfapo vs. Atty. Teodoro V. Nano, Sr., the complainant, Jose A. Arfapo, filed a complaint against the respondent, Atty. Teodoro V. Nano, Sr., alleging malpractice in the preparation of a deed of sale concerning a 15-hectare land with improvements. The events leading to the complaint unfolded on December 5, 1972, when the spouses Arfapo and Concepcion Mapalinta, along with the spouses Newton Nano and Hildegarda Ibanez, visited Nano's law office to execute the deed of sale. The agreed price for the land was P6,000.00, but the deed was allegedly altered to reflect a price of P5,500.00, misrepresenting the remaining balance after a down payment of P1,500.00. Furthermore, it was claimed that Nano appropriated P500.00 intended for realty taxes. In his defense, Nano denied the allegations, asserting that the price of P5,500.00 was indeed agreed upon and that the complainant had assured him there were no outstanding realty taxes. The case was...

Facts:

Background of the Case

Jose A. Arfapo filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Teodoro V. Nano, Sr., alleging malpractice. The complaint arose from the preparation of a deed of sale for a portion of a 15-hectare land owned by Arfapo and his wife, Concepcion Mapalinta.

Allegations Against the Respondent

Arfapo accused Atty. Nano of:

1. Preparing the deed of sale without the knowledge and participation of the vendors (Arfapo and his wife).
2. Altering the agreed consideration from P6,000.00 to P5,500.00.
3. Misrepresenting the remaining balance as P4,000.00 instead of P4,500.00.
4. Misappropriating P500.00 allegedly intended for realty taxes.

Respondent’s Defense

Atty. Nano denied the allegations and claimed:

1. The vendors and vendees (Newton Nano and Hildegarda Ibanez) voluntarily came to his office to sign the deed of sale.
2. The price of P5,500.00 was agreed upon by the parties, with a down payment of P1,500.00 and a balance of P4,000.00.
3. Taxes were not discussed, as Arfapo assured them there were no arrears or encumbrances on the property.
4. Arfapo suggested executing a Deed of Absolute Sale instead of a contract with mortgage.

Subsequent Legal Actions

1. The vendees filed Civil Case No. 442 for specific performance and damages against Arfapo and his wife due to unpaid realty taxes.
2. Atty. Nano filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against Arfapo.
3. Arfapo filed a disbarment case against Atty. Nano, libel and slander cases, and Civil Case No. 8376 for rescission of contract and damages against the Nano spouses.

Amicable Settlement

1. Civil Case No. 442 was settled amicably, and a joint affidavit was executed by the parties.
2. Arfapo executed an affidavit of desistance, requesting the dismissal of the administrative case.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. The burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant, and the charges must be established by convincing evidence.
2. The complainant’s affidavit of desistance and the lack of evidence render the investigation difficult.
3. The respondent is entitled to the presumption that, as an officer of the Court, he performed his duty in accordance with his oath.