August 1980 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1980 > August 1980 Decisions >
A.C. No. 1343 August 6, 1980 - PAUL T. NAIDAS v. VALENTIN C. GUANIO, ET AL.:
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 1343. August 6, 1980.]
PAUL T. NAIDAS, Complainant, v. VALENTIN C. GUANIO and AUGUSTO SANCHEZ, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
Paul T. Naidas in his verified complaint of June 19, 1974 charged lawyers Valentin C. Guanio and Augusto Sanchez with deceit, malpractice, misconduct and violation of the attorney’s oath in connection with the two applications for land registration filed by Angelina C. Reynoso covering a parcel of land with an area of 3,606 square meters located at Barrio Aromahan, Antipolo, Rizal (Land Registration Cases Nos. N-6165 [CA-G.R. No. 47924-R] and N-7993 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal). Naidas had opposed the first application of Reynoso.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Respondent Sanchez in his answer denied the charges. He alleged that Naidas filed this disbarment proceeding because (1) Sanchez "continued a criminal prosecution" for usurpation of real rights against Naidas, (2) Sanchez was the lawyer of Reynoso in the ejectment suit wherein Naidas was adjudged liable to pay damages, (3) Sanchez was the lawyer in the theft case filed against Naidas and (4) another ejectment suit would be filed against Naidas.
"Respondent Guanio in his answer also denied the charges. He adopted the answer of Sanchez insofar as relevant to his (Guanio’s) defense and branded Naidas’ complaint as motivated by "pure vindictiveness."
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
On May 9, 1980, while the case was still pending investigation, Naidas filed a manifestation wherein he said that after reading respondents’ answers he came to the conclusion that they might have "acted improperly but not with malice and deceit." He confessed that he "had lost interest in the matter" and that he had no intention of continuing the prosecution of his complaint.
In view of that manifestation, the Solicitor General’s Office, as directed by this Court, returned the record of this case.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Justices Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., were designated to sit in the Second Division.
Respondent Sanchez in his answer denied the charges. He alleged that Naidas filed this disbarment proceeding because (1) Sanchez "continued a criminal prosecution" for usurpation of real rights against Naidas, (2) Sanchez was the lawyer of Reynoso in the ejectment suit wherein Naidas was adjudged liable to pay damages, (3) Sanchez was the lawyer in the theft case filed against Naidas and (4) another ejectment suit would be filed against Naidas.
"Respondent Guanio in his answer also denied the charges. He adopted the answer of Sanchez insofar as relevant to his (Guanio’s) defense and branded Naidas’ complaint as motivated by "pure vindictiveness."
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
On May 9, 1980, while the case was still pending investigation, Naidas filed a manifestation wherein he said that after reading respondents’ answers he came to the conclusion that they might have "acted improperly but not with malice and deceit." He confessed that he "had lost interest in the matter" and that he had no intention of continuing the prosecution of his complaint.
In view of that manifestation, the Solicitor General’s Office, as directed by this Court, returned the record of this case.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Justices Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., were designated to sit in the Second Division.
