A.M. No. 434 - SEPTEMBER 1962 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 434September 29, 1962 Casiano U. Laput vs. Francisco E. F. Remotigue A.M. No. 219September 29, 1962 Casiano U. Laput vs. Francisco E. F. Remotigue, et al. G.R. No. 18459September 29, 1962 Narceso Sambrano, et al. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 18453September 29, 1962 Campos Rueda Corporation vs. Jose S. Bautista, et al. G.R. No. 18315September 29, 1962 Ernesto Campos, et al. vs. Esteban Degamo, et al. G.R. No. L-18217 and L-18222September 29, 1962 Findlay Millar Timber, Co. vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union etc. G.R. No. 18157September 29, 1962 Dolores Evangelista, et al. vs. Municipality of Paombong, et al. G.R. No. 18077September 29, 1962 Rodrigo Enriquez, et al. vs. Soccorro A. Ramos G.R. No. 18003September 29, 1962 Rosario Grey vda. de Albar, et al. vs. Josefa Fabie de Carandang, et al. G.R. No. 17985September 29, 1962 Gil San Diego, et al. vs. Agustin P. Montesa, et al. G.R. No. 17892September 29, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Repato, et al. G.R. No. 17870September 29, 1962 Mindanao Bus Company vs. City Assessor and Treasurer , et al. G.R. No. 17834September 29, 1962 Philippine Engineering Corporation, et al. vs. Patricio C. Ceniza, et al. G.R. No. 17786September 29, 1962 Camilo P. Cabili, et al. vs. Mariano Ll. Badelles, et al. G.R. No. 17734September 29, 1962 Antonio Torrijos vs. Guillermo Crisologo, et al. G.R. No. 17730September 29, 1962 F. H. Stevens & Company, Inc. et al. vs. Norddeuscher Lloyd G.R. No. 17459September 29, 1962 Diwata Vargas vs. Salvador Langcay, et al. G.R. No. 17233September 29, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Toribio C. Tabanao, et al. G.R. No. 17197September 29, 1962 Manuel L. Galvez, et al. vs. Valentina Tagle vda. de Kangleon, et al. G.R. No. 17193September 29, 1962 Maximo Morales vs. Maria Biagtas, et al. G.R. No. 16920September 29, 1962 Maxima Danting vs. Manila Railroad Company G.R. No. 16919September 29, 1962 Rufino Gallardo, et al. vs. Manila Railroad Company G.R. No. 16771September 29, 1962 Vicente Aldaba, et al. vs. Artemio Elepaño, et al. G.R. No. 16742September 29, 1962 Sergio F. del Castillo vs. Manuel H. Javelona, et al. G.R. No. 16481September 29, 1962 MD Transit and Taxi Co., Inc. vs. Santiago Pepito G.R. No. 16298September 29, 1962 Esteban Cuajao vs. Chua Lo Tan, et al. G.R. No. 16227September 29, 1962 Pilar Gregorio, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias G.R. No. 16033September 29, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Orteza G.R. No. 16220September 29, 1962 Apolinario Dee, et al. vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, et al. G.R. No. 15836September 29, 1962 Apolinario Dee, et al. vs. Igor A. Maslof, et al. G.R. No. 15819September 29, 1962 In re: Wang I. Fu Wang I. Fu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 14495September 29, 1962 Vicente Uy Chao vs. Dela Rama Steamship, Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. 19605September 28, 1962 Augusto R. Villarosa vs. Romeo G. Guanzon G.R. No. 15092September 29, 1962 Alfredo Montelibano, et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. Inc. G.R. No. 14875September 29, 1962 La Tondeña, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. 14643September 29, 1962 Arturo Nieto vs. Bartolome Quines, et al. G.R. No. 13289September 29, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Rafanan, et al. G.R. No. 17163September 28, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Gerardo Dumlao, et al. G.R. No. 13827September 28, 1962 Benjamin Masangcay vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 17683September 26, 1962 William C. Pflieder vs. C. N. Hodges G.R. No. 17165September 26, 1962 Emma R. Geniza, et al. vs. Henry Sy, et al. G.R. No. 14591September 26, 1962 Pindañgan Agricultural Company, Inc. vs. Jose P. Dans, et al. G.R. No. 17481 and l_17537-59September 24, 1962 Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. 13967September 21, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Genaro Solaña, et al. G.R. No. 18185September 18, 1962 Valleson, Inc. vs. Bessie C. Tiburcio G.R. No. 19748September 13, 1962 Paulino J. Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Casiano U. Laput vs. Francisco E. F. Remotigue Casiano U. Laput vs. Francisco E. F. Remotigue, et al. Narceso Sambrano, et al. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Campos Rueda Corporation vs. Jose S. Bautista, et al. Ernesto Campos, et al. vs. Esteban Degamo, et al. Findlay Millar Timber, Co. vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union etc. Dolores Evangelista, et al. vs. Municipality of Paombong, et al. Rodrigo Enriquez, et al. vs. Soccorro A. Ramos Rosario Grey vda. de Albar, et al. vs. Josefa Fabie de Carandang, et al. Gil San Diego, et al. vs. Agustin P. Montesa, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Repato, et al. Mindanao Bus Company vs. City Assessor and Treasurer , et al. Philippine Engineering Corporation, et al. vs. Patricio C. Ceniza, et al. Camilo P. Cabili, et al. vs. Mariano Ll. Badelles, et al. Antonio Torrijos vs. Guillermo Crisologo, et al. F. H. Stevens & Company, Inc. et al. vs. Norddeuscher Lloyd Diwata Vargas vs. Salvador Langcay, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Toribio C. Tabanao, et al. Manuel L. Galvez, et al. vs. Valentina Tagle vda. de Kangleon, et al. Maximo Morales vs. Maria Biagtas, et al. Maxima Danting vs. Manila Railroad Company Rufino Gallardo, et al. vs. Manila Railroad Company Vicente Aldaba, et al. vs. Artemio Elepaño, et al. Sergio F. del Castillo vs. Manuel H. Javelona, et al. MD Transit and Taxi Co., Inc. vs. Santiago Pepito Esteban Cuajao vs. Chua Lo Tan, et al. Pilar Gregorio, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Orteza Apolinario Dee, et al. vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, et al. Apolinario Dee, et al. vs. Igor A. Maslof, et al. In re: Wang I. Fu Wang I. Fu vs. Republic of the Philippines Vicente Uy Chao vs. Dela Rama Steamship, Co., Inc., et al. Augusto R. Villarosa vs. Romeo G. Guanzon Alfredo Montelibano, et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. Inc. La Tondeña, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Arturo Nieto vs. Bartolome Quines, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Rafanan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gerardo Dumlao, et al. Benjamin Masangcay vs. Commission on Elections William C. Pflieder vs. C. N. Hodges Emma R. Geniza, et al. vs. Henry Sy, et al. Pindañgan Agricultural Company, Inc. vs. Jose P. Dans, et al. Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Genaro Solaña, et al. Valleson, Inc. vs. Bessie C. Tiburcio Paulino J. Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
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.
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 committing unfair and unethical practices bordering on dishonesty, all to the prejudice of said complainant.
Complainant alleges that by virtue of a duly recorded "Attorney's 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 owner's 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 complainant's recorded lien to the said lots and titles in question.lâwphi1.ñet
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 Owner's 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 a 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 Special Proceedings No. 2-J of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and yet Atty. Laput did not comply with 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 estate's 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 attorney's 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 attorney's 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.1awphîl.nèt
An examination of the motions complained of by Atty. Laput shows that respondent's answers 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 respondent's 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.