Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 434 September 29, 1962

CASIANO U. LAPUT, petitioner,

vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO E. F. REMOTIGUE, respondent.

DECISION

LABRADOR, J.:

This is an original complaint a sequel to Adm. Case No. 219 filed with this Court
charging the respondent with malice, bad faith, and misrepresentation when the latter
allegedly filed motions in court without notice to complainant, thereby committing unfair and
unethical practices bordering on dishonesty, all to the prejudice of said complainant.

Complainant alleges that by virtue of a duly recorded Attorneys Lien entered into the
records of Special Proceedings No. 2-J of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, he has in his
lawful possession records and papers of the estate under administration, among which are
transfer certificates of title to all real properties of the estate located in Cebu province; that
on February 21, 1956 and on September 16, 1957, the respondent, without notice to
complainant, filed with the probate court motions praying that complainant be directed to
surrender the aforesaid certificates of title, and on December 3, 1958, another motion,
without notice, praying that he be issued owners duplicate copies of the certificates of title
on the ground that the same were lost, the respondent knowing all along that complainant is
in lawful possession of said certificates of title; and that with the duplicate titles, respondent
and his client Mrs. Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera (formerly the client of complainant) sold
without notice the lots covered thereby, all of which, aside from being unfair and unethical,
were prejudicial to complainants recorded lien to the said lots and titles in question.

Respondent denied any knowledge of the recorded lien of complainant and his retention of
records and transfer certificates of title. Respondent also denied that he was the author of
the first motion complained of; that the second motion prayed for an order directing
complainant to turn over to them the certificates of title; or that he filed another motion
alleging that they lost the Torrens titles to the estate lots, the true facts being that the
administratrix, on December 3, 1958, filed a Petition for the Issuance of Duplicate Owners
copy, for the reason that she could not locate said transfer certificate of title in spite of
diligent action; that as early as November 18, 1958, the administratrix sought authority from
the court to sell real property of the estate in order to satisfy several indebtedness of the
estate; that the court finally approved the sales made, on October 8, 1959, in spite of the
written opposition of complainant; and that if he (respondent)had known that the transfer
certificates of title in question were in the possession of complainant he could have taken an
easier procedure by merely asking Atty. Laput to produce them.

The Solicitor General, to whom this Court referred this case for investigation, report and
recommendation found that since January 11, 1955, when the widow, Mrs. Barrera, filed the
pleading entitled Discharge of Counsel for the Administration and Motion to Cite Atty.
Casiano U. Laput, complainant herein (Atty. Laput) was already asked by the widow in that
pleading to turn over all the records, bank books, other pertinent papers and documents of
the above entitled case which I have handed him; and assets, if any, to the undersigned
administration pending my appointment of a new lawyer for the administration registration
and that although Atty. Laput was not served copy of this pleading, he must have come
across it inasmuch as from time to time, he went over the records of Special Proceedings
No. 2-J of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and yet Atty. Laput did not comply with the
request of the widow to turn over to her all the records of her case.

In a motion dated September 16, 1957, filed before the Court of First Instance of Cebu in
said special proceedings, respondent asked the court to order Atty. Laput to surrender to
the administratrix or to the Court the passbook in the Philippine National Bank of the
deposits of the estate and all such other documents in his possession and belonging to the
estate . . .. By virtue of this motion, the Court of First Instance of Cebu, on October 17,
1957, ordered complainant Laput to surrender and deposit with the clerk of court, within ten
days from notice, the passbook of the estates deposit in the Philippine National Bank, Cebu
Branch, and of the documents belonging to the estate in his possession.

The Solicitor General found that in spite of all the above-mentioned pleadings, motions, and
order of the Court, complainant stubbornly kept to himself the transfer certificates of title in
question, and so it could seem that complainant was the one at fault.

The Solicitor General also found that after complainant was discharged by the
administratrix, his claim for attorneys fees in the sum of P26,561.48 out of total of
P31,329.15, was already collected by him from the estate during his incumbency as the
lawyer for the administratrix; that the Court of First Instance of Cebu fixed, as early as
December 19, 1955, the amount of P4,767.67 as the balance to be paid to Attorney Laput,
later on increased to P5,699.66, and that in spite of such fixing by the court of his attorneys
fees and the order of payment to him of the balance of P5,699.66 by the estate, as early as
December 27, 1955, which order was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals, complainant
Laput pretended that all throughout the years following 1955 to the date of his filing the
present complaint, he (Atty. Laput) believed that he had still the right to retain the
certificates of title in question.

An examination of the motions complained of by Atty. Laput shows that respondents

answers are correct; and it is therefore clear from all the foregoing that respondent did not
act with malice or bad faith. Hence, the recommendation of the Solicitor General for
respondents complete exoneration should be, as it hereby, is approved.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon,
Regala and Makalintal, JJ. concur.

6 SCRA 45 Legal Ethics Client Grabbing

In 1952, Atty. Laput was retained by Nieves Barrera as counsel in a testate proceeding. He
remained as counsel for three years. But in January 1955, Atty. Fortunato Patalinghug filed
his written appearance as new counsel for Barrera. When Laput found out about
Patalinghugs appearance, he voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as counsel for
Barrera on February 5, 1955. On February 7, 1955, Atty. Remotigue also filed his
appearance as additional counsel for Barrera.

Laput is now charging the two lawyers of unethical and improper appearances for Barrera;
that they influenced her to replace Laput as her counsel; that they caused her to
disauthorize him as counsel for her; that the purpose of said lawyers is to embarrass Laput
to the officials and employees of the corporations owned by the estate subject of the testate
proceedings.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is encroachment of client in the case at bar.

HELD: No. It was found out that Barrera herself caused the filing of a pleading to discharge
Laput as her counsel. Barrera did this because she lost trust and confidence in Laput. She
lost trust in Laput because she found out that there were some dividend checks that were
supposed to be sent to her but Laput took said checks as his own hence she felt cheated.

Thereafter, she went to the law office of Remotigue and Patalinghug where she arranged a
contract. The fact that Laput voluntarily asked the court to discharge him as counsel for
Barrera after Patalinghug filed his entry of appearance showed Laputs acquiescence to
Patalinghugs appearance as counsel for Barrera. This should estop petitioner from now
complaining that the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug was unprofessional. On the part of
Remotigue, there can be no irregularity for he filed his entry of appearance only after Laput
was discharged as counsel for Barrera.