Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > April 1978 Decisions > A.C. No. 1814 April 13, 1978 - CARMEN M. OROZCO v. SALVADOR N. BELTRAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1814. April 13, 1978.]

CARMEN M. OROZCO, Complainant, v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. BELTRAN, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


In a verified complaint, respondent was alleged to have shown disrespect for the law which he had sworn to uphold because as a lessee of complainant’s apartment, he committed various infractions of the lease contract. In his comment respondent contended that the charge should be ventilated in an ejectment suit or an appropriate civil case. As the latter eventually vacated the apartment, complainant in a latter moved that the case be considered closed. She prayed however, that respondent be ordered to pay his back rentals, to refund payment of shares of stocks and to refund legal fees.

In denying the same, the Supreme Court held that said relief cannot be granted in an administrative case because complainant’s remedy lies in a separate civil case.

Case considered terminated.


SYLLABUS


1. ATTORNEYS; ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST; IMPROPER VENUE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. — Where in an administrative case charging a member of the Philippine Bar for various infraction of a lease contract, which case was considered terminated in view of complainant’s manifestation that respondent had already vacated the premises, but the complainant nonetheless prayed for payment of the respondent’s back accounts as a lessee and reimbursement of other amounts, the relief will be denied, since complainant’s remedy lies in a civil case.


R E S O L U T I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Carmen M. Orozco, a retired professor of the University of Santo Tomas, filed on September 26, 1977 a verified complaint against Atty. Salvador N. Beltran. She alleged that the respondent, as the lessee of her apartment at 58 Seattle Street, Cubao, Quezon City, committed numerous infractions of the lease contract and thereby evinced no respect for the law which he had sworn to uphold.chanrobles law library : red

The respondent in his comment of October 28, 1977 explained that the charge should be ventilated in an ejectment suit or in an appropriate civil case and not in an administrative proceeding. He recounted the circumstances surrounding his lease of the apartment as well as the legal services which he had rendered to the complainant.

The respondent in his pleading of January 24, 1978 manifested that he would vacate complainant’s apartment the next day. The complainant is now in possession of the apartment.

In her letter of March 4, 1978 she stated that this case should be considered closed. However, she prayed that the respondent be ordered to pay her the sum of P5,000 as back rentals, refund of payment for shares of stock and refund of legal fee. That relief cannot be granted in this administrative case. Complainant’s remedy lies in a civil action against the Respondent.

WHEREFORE, this case is considered terminated.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion and Santos, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com