ManilaEN
BANC
JOSEFINA
M. ORTEGA,
Complainant,
A. C. No. 898
February 24, 1971
-versus-
ATTY. ERNESTO F. RIVERA,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.cralaw:red
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
P. 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. |