A.C. No. 1445 - Agbayani vs. Agtang

Case Summary (A.C. No. 1445)

Filing of the Disbarment Complaint and Core Allegations

The administrative complaint for disbarment was anchored on the alleged falsity of representations made by the respondent in the adoption proceeding. It was asserted that the petition alleged that Geronimo Reyes had no child, notwithstanding the complainant’s claim that the respondent knew that he had a child named Balbina Reyes. The complainant contended that the alleged misrepresentation misled the Court and contributed to the issuance of a decision granting the adoption.

Referral to the Office of the Solicitor General and Investigation Events

After the respondent submitted his comment on May 26, 1975, the case was referred, on June 4, 1976, to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The first hearing date in the Office of the Solicitor General was set for November 27, 1975, but it was reset to November 28, 1975. On November 28, 1975, the investigation did not proceed because the complainant requested a postponement. The hearing was then reset to December 19, 1975, but it again did not proceed due to a joint motion for postponement filed by the parties. A later reset was made to July 26, 1976, when only the respondent appeared; the complainant and her lawyer failed to attend. To allow the complainant to appear, the hearing was further reset to August 16, 1976.

Hearing and the Affidavit of Desistance

On August 16, 1976, both the complainant and the respondent appeared. Instead of presenting evidence, the complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance (Exhibit “1”). In the affidavit, she stated that she had been misled in filing the case and expressed that she had lost interest in it and desired to withdraw her complaint. Despite the affidavit of desistance, the Solicitor assigned to the case proceeded with the investigation.

Evidence Considered in the Solicitor General’s Investigation

On the basis of the investigation, the Acting Solicitor General submitted his report on September 8, 1976, recommending dismissal of the charges. The recommendation rested on findings that the respondent had proceeded in good faith and that the complainant failed to prove the alleged misconduct by convincing evidence.

The report noted that the complainant’s testimony was brief and consisted primarily of her affirmation of the truth of her affidavit of desistance. The respondent then testified substantially as follows. He acknowledged that he was the counsel in the adoption petition filed before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte on behalf of Geronimo Reyes. He stated that in August 1973, Martin Agbayani, father of the minor Joey Agbayani, sought his assistance regarding Geronimo Reyes’s desire to adopt Joey. Because Geronimo Reyes was not present, the respondent told Martin Agbayani to bring him so that he could be interviewed. In the middle of August 1973, the parties—Martin Agbayani, Joey Agbayani, and Geronimo Reyes—came to the respondent’s office, where two other persons were also present: Honorio Tunac and Jose Castillo. The respondent interviewed Geronimo Reyes, including questions on whether he had any child and whether he was married. Geronimo Reyes allegedly answered that he had no child and that he was a widower. The respondent testified that around August 20, 1973, he went to Geronimo Reyes’s residence to sign the verification of the petition for adoption, and he also let the Agbayanis sign an affidavit of consent for the adoption.

The report further recorded that the respondent claimed the complainant’s allegations were untrue. He denied knowing Geronimo Reyes prior to the filing of the special proceeding and denied that he frequently went to Bo. Salsalamagui, Vintar, Ilocos Norte, where Geronimo Reyes lived. He maintained that the charges were not true and suggested that the complainant’s motive might have been influenced by the fact that he served as counsel for persons whose cases involved the husband of the complainant as an adverse party.

The respondent also presented Honorio Tunac, an elementary school head teacher and concurrently assistant principal of Barangay High School, Vintar, Ilocos Norte. Tunac testified that he knew the complainant, the respondent, and Geronimo Reyes. He knew Joey Agbayani, son of Martin Agbayani. He recalled that in the middle of August 1973 he was at the respondent’s house when Geronimo Reyes, Martin Agbayani, and Joey Agbayani arrived for an interview conducted by the respondent regarding the adoption. Tunac testified that he remembered questions asked by Atty. Agtang concerning Geronimo Reyes’s personal data, occupation, marital status, and whether he had children. Geronimo Reyes allegedly responded that he had no child. Tunac also testified that the three stayed in the respondent’s house for around forty to fifty minutes.

Parties’ Positions as Evaluated by the Solicitor General

The Solicitor General’s report concluded that the respondent relied in good faith on the representations made by Geronimo Reyes that he had no child. It also underscored the significance of the complainant’s affidavit of desistance, which the report treated as an admission that she was misled in filing the complaint and that she believed the administrative case should not have been filed at all. The report also found indications that the complainant had a personal motive in charging the respondent, since the respondent served as counsel in cases where the complainant’s husband had adverse interests.

The report invoked the evidentiary principle that the burden in disbarment proceedings rests on the complainant and requires proof by convincing evidence. It concluded that the complainant failed to discharge that burden.

Disposition by the Court

Relying on the Solicitor General’s findings and recommendations, the Court dismissed the administrative case against the respondent. The Court held that the complainant did not establish by convincing proof the misconduct charged. The Resolution was concurred in by Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr. The Court thus ordered the dismissal of the case.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s disposition followed the fundamental rule governing disbarment and similar disciplin

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 1445)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Benita A. Agbayani filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jaime V. Agtang.
The complaint was anchored on alleged falsehood in a petition for adoption filed by Geronimo Reyes.
After Atty. Agtang submitted his comment on May 26, 1975, the matter was referred on June 4, 1976 to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The investigation scheduled in the Office of the Solicitor General underwent several resets due to postponements requested by the parties, including a postponement requested by the complainant and a subsequent joint motion.
On August 16, 1976, the complainant and the respondent appeared, but the complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance instead of presenting evidence.
Despite the affidavit of desistance, the Office of the Solicitor General proceeded with the investigation and submitted a recommendation to dismiss.
The matter was resolved by the Court in a resolution dismissing the charges.

Key Factual Allegations

The complaint alleged that Atty. Agtang made a falsehood in the petition for adoption filed by Geronimo Reyes.
The petition allegedly claimed that the adopter had no child, even though the respondent allegedly knew that the adopter had a child named Balbina Reyes.
The complainant contended that the Court was misled, and that the Court consequently rendered a decision granting the adoption.
The complainant asserted that the falsity induced the issuance of a favorable adoption decree because the Court believed the adopter had no children.

Defense Theory Presented

Atty. Agtang denied that he knew Geronimo Reyes to have a child named Balbina Reyes at the time of the adoption proceeding.
He asserted that he relied on good faith on the adopter’s representations that the adopter had no child.
He denied that he frequented the adopter’s barangay residence in Vintar, Ilocos Norte as alleged in the complaint.
He explained that the adoption preparation involved interviews and questioning by the Court’s commissioner, including inquiries into personal circumstances, financial capacity, marital status, and whether the adopter had any children.
He claimed that the complainant’s motive for filing the administrative case may have been personal, stating that the respondent was counsel of persons in cases where the complainant’s husband was the adverse party.
He alleged that the complainant might have been misled or misguided into filing the complaint due to her circumstances and interests in other matters.

Evidence and Testimonial Findings

The Office of the Solicitor General reported that the complainant’s testimony was brief and did not establish the alleged misconduct.
The complainant affirmed the truth of