Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 381

February 10, 1968

EMILIO CAPULONG and CIRILA CAPULONG, petitioners,

vs.
MANUEL G. ALIO, respondent.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Respondent Manuel G. Alio a member of the bar, is charged by his former clients, the
spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong, with alleged "gross negligence tantamount to malpractice and
betrayal of his clients' trust and confidence."
This allegation is based upon the admitted fact that, on August 21, 1957, respondent received
from the complainants, as their counsel in Civil Case No. 2248 of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija the decision in which, adverse to said complainants, had been appealed by them to
the Court of Appeals the sum of P298.00, for the specific purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the "appellate" docket fees (P24), appeal bond (P15), (printing of) the record on appeal
(P150) and appellants' brief (P100), and that said appeal was dismissed because of respondent's
failure to pay the docket fee and to deposit the estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal.
In his answer, respondent alleged that complainants had authorized him to exercise his
judgment and discretion in determining whether or not he should prosecute the appeal, and to
regard said sum of P298.00 as compensation for his services in connection with said case, should
he consider it advisable to desist from said appeal.
After due hearing, the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija who, having been deputized therefor
by the Solicitor General, received the evidence for both parties considered respondent's
uncorroborated testimony, in support of his answer, unworthy of credence and found the charge
against him duly proven, and, accordingly, recommended disciplinary action against respondent.
Concurring in this finding and recommendation, the Solicitor General filed the corresponding
complaint charging respondent with "deceit, malpractice or gross misconduct in office as a lawyer,"
in that, owing to his "negligence and gross bad faith . . . in unduly and knowingly failing to remit to
the Court of Appeals the docket fee and the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal," said
Court dismissed the aforementioned appeal.
In his answer to this charge respondent reiterated substantially his aforementioned defense
and expressed "his intention of introducing additional evidence." Accordingly, this Court referred the
matter to its Legal Officer for reception of said evidence, but, eventually respondent introduced one.
The evidence on record fully confirms the finding of guilt made by the Provincial Fiscal of
Nueva Ecija and the Solicitor General and their conclusion to the effect that respondent's
uncorroborated testimony is unworthy of credence. Indeed, had complainants authorized him to
decide whether or not to prosecute their appeal or desist therefrom, and, in the latter alternative, to

keep the P298.00 in question as his fees, respondent would have retrieved the receipt issued by him
for said sum, stating specifically that it would be used for docket fees, the record on appeal, the
appeal bond and the (printing) of their brief. Moreover, if his failure to pay said docket fees and to
deposit the estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal was due to his decision pursuant to
the aforementioned authority he had allegedly been given to desist from prosecuting the appeal
and to apply the money to the payment of his professional fees, why is it that he filed a motion for
reconsideration of the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in consequence of
said failure, thereby securing, in effect, an extension of over five (5) months, to make said payment
and deposit, which, eventually, he did not make?
After all, the foregoing acts and omissions of respondent herein dovetail with his subsequent
behaviour. Thus, when, prior to the commencement of this administrative proceedings, complainants'
counsel contacted respondent and advised him to settle the matter with them, respondent said he
would do so, but actually did nothing about it. Hence, the complaint herein was filed. So too, in view
of the allegation in respondent's answer, to the complaint filed by the Solicitor General, to the effect
that he (respondent) had "the intention of introducing additional evidence" before this Court, the
same designated its Legal Officer for the reception of said evidence. Yet, after securing four (4)
postponements of the date set by said officer for this purpose, respondent did not introduce any
additional evidence in his favor. Similarly, when the present case was set for oral argument before
this Court, respondent moved for the postponement of the date set therefor. And, having been given
ten (10) days to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, respondent filed no memorandum in
his favor.
Apart from suggesting a misappropriation of funds held by him in trust for his clients and a
breach of such trust, the foregoing acts and omissions indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of
respondent herein and his unworthiness to continue as a member of the legal profession.
Respondent Manuel G. Alio is, accordingly, disbarred. His name is ordered stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys and his certificate of Membership of the Philippine Bar, which he is directed to
surrender to the Clerk of Court, within ten (10) days after this judgment has become final, hereby
revoked. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando,
JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
August 9, 1932
CONCEPCION CABIGAO and LUIS YZQUIERDO, complainants,
vs.
JOSE FERNANDO RODRIGO, respondent.
Alfredo B. Cacnio for complainants.
The respondent in his own behalf.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for the Government.
IMPERIAL, J.:
On March 6, 1931, Concepcion Cabigao and Luis Yzquierdo filed charges for malpractice against
Attorney Jose Fernando Rodrigo.
By resolution of March 9, 1931, the court referred the matter to the Attorney-General for
investigation, report and recommendation.
After several hearings in which the parties submitted their evidence the Attorney-General, on April 5,
1932, submitted his report.
The respondent was then required to answer the report and after various extensions of time which
were granted him upon his request he finally filed his answer on May 20, 1932.
The matter was called for hearing on July 12, 1932, and the attorneys filed their respective
memorandum.
After careful consideration of the whole evidence presented at the hearings the Attorney-General
found the following facts satisfactorily proven:
That the complainants were defendants in case No. 3590 of the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan; that the respondent was one of their counsel; that sometime between May and July,
1930, the respondent advised the complainants to settle the case for P2,500, and that during
the same period, the respondent had been the house of Eugenio Lim Pineda, plaintiff in said
case No. 3590, with offers of settlement; that after securing the assent of said Eugenio Lim
Pineda to a settlement of the case for the amount of P2,500, the respondent obtained from
the complainants a check for the amount of P3,900, P2,500 of which, he represented as the
sum to be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda in full settlement of the case and the P1,400 to be
paid to himself for his professional services; that the respondent also represented to the
complainants that the payment of said amount would terminate the case and that Pineda
would subscribe to a motion for dismissal; that after obtaining from the complainants the said

check, the respondent kept the funds and failed to settle the case; that the complainants
relying upon the representatives of the respondent believed that the case would be settled
and were unprepared for the trial which took place sometime after the respondent had
assured them that they had "nothing to worry about"; that by reason of the respondent's
representations and conduct, the complainants were forced to a settlement in open court, by
the terms of which, they were sentenced to pay the amount of P3,500 to Eugenio Lim
Pineda; that in order to satisfy the judgment the complainants demanded of the respondent,
the return of the amount of P2,500 (Exhs. B and E of the complainants and Exh. 20 of the
respondent); that to compel the respondent to make such return the complainants had to
appeal to the fiscal of the City of Manila; that by reason of the respondent's conduct the
complainants suffered considerable damages.
The facts above quoted are undeniable and do not leave room for any doubt. It has been clearly
proven by Exhibit A, the authenticity of which is admitted by respondent, that he received the check
No. 1568738-D of the Philippine National bank in the amount of P3,900 to be applied as follows:
P2,500 to be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda as the agreed price of the amicable settlement between
him and the complainants in civil case No. 3590 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, and
P1,400 to be paid to the respondent as attorney's fees. The whole amount of P3,900 was
misappropriated by the respondent notwithstanding the fact that he never carried out the alleged
amicable settlement of the case and the repeated demands made by the complainants for the return
of the money.
We have here a clear case of misappropriation by an attorney of funds entrusted to him by his
clients to be applied to the settlement of a civil case in which he acted as a lawyer. It also clearly
appears that these facts constitute malpractice for which the respondent is accountable.
The contention of the respondent that he had the right to retain the money intended to be paid to
Eugenio Lim Pineda for the protection of certain bondsmen secured by him in favor of the
complainants and that at any rate he was entitled to use all the money because the complainants
were indebted to him in a larger amount as attorney's fees, is untenable and without merit. He
admitted having received the total sum of money for the specific purpose recited in the receipt
signed by him, and we fail to conceive any sound reason by which he should be allowed to misapply
said money entrusted to him. To permit this would amount to sanctioning a flagrant violation of his
obligations as an attorney to his clients and to the public, aside from the criminal aspect which the
case might have.
In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that Attorney Jose Fernando Rodrigo should be, as he
is hereby, suspended from his profession indefinitely 1 and until he refunds the sum of P3,900 to the
complainants and let this matter be again referred to the Attorney-General for appropriate action,
result thereof to be reported to this court for further proceeding. So ordered.
Avancea, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and
Butte, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1

Modified by resolution of December 23, 1932, fixing the period of suspension for six months.