Supreme Court decision · Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
Mendoza v. Reyes
A.C. No. 905 · Promulgated May 30, 1975 · Ponente: Barredo
In brief
This case is about a disbarment complaint against Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes for allegedly notarizing an affidavit before complainant signed it; the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Notarization, Disbarment, Attorney Discipline, Dismissal, Insufficient Evidence
Related cases
- A.M. No. 852-MJ Alegre v. Nidea (Previous decision in Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises)
- A.M. No. 145-CFI Castro v. Bullecer (Next decision in Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises)
Full text
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 905. May 30, 1975 ]
HERMOGENES G. MENDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARSENIO R. REYES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
BARREDO, J.:
Respondent is charged with having notarized an affidavit before the same had been signed by complainant who in fact refused to sign the same. Respondent denied having signed the alleged notarization. Upon proper investigation the Solicitor General has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that the signature in question is that of respondent.
Going over the records, We find the report of the Solicitor General to be in order. The circumstances on record show that complainant must have a personal motive in charging respondent but failed to prosecute the case properly. He repeatedly failed to appear at the hearing. As a matter of fact, his cross-examination could not be finished because of his absence, and the case had to be submitted for decision without his testimony being completed.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and respondent is exonerated.
Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
Going over the records, We find the report of the Solicitor General to be in order. The circumstances on record show that complainant must have a personal motive in charging respondent but failed to prosecute the case properly. He repeatedly failed to appear at the hearing. As a matter of fact, his cross-examination could not be finished because of his absence, and the case had to be submitted for decision without his testimony being completed.
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and respondent is exonerated.
Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.