SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1085 June 10, 1976

DALTON WOODROW WORTHINGTON, Complainant, vs. FELIPE FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

AQUINO, J.:

Dalton Woodrow Worthington lodged in 1972 a complaint for disbarment charging Atty. Felipe Fernandez with malpractice, fraud and deceit in connection with an estafa case filed in 1968 against Worthington in the office of the City Fiscal of Manila.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The subject matter of the estafa case was the blending tobacco imported by the Eastern Tobacco Trading Corporation (of which Worthington was the president). The tobacco was seized by the Bureau of Customs. The estafa case was dismissed due to the efforts of Fernandez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Worthington alleged that on December 28, 1968 he and Fernandez entered into a contract whereby it was agreed that Eastern Tobacco Trading Corporation would pay Fernandez as attorney's fees twenty percent of the proceeds of the sale of the blending tobacco.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Worthington averred that the contract was simulated because its real purpose was to secure to himself a share in the proceeds of the sale of the seized tobacco. He denounced certain irregularities committed by Fernandez in connection with the release and disposition of the blending tobacco.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Fernandez denied the charges. He insinuated that it was Worthington who failed to live up to his commitment to pay him his attorney's fees. He filed a counterclaim for damages in the sum of P300,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Due to interminable postponements the case was never heard. Thus, at the instance of Worthington, the hearings set for August 15, September 15 and 27 and December 21, 1972 were postponed. The parties agreed to cancel the hearings set for December 4 and 5, 1972 and January 4, February 8 and March 8, 1973. Due to Worthington's non-appearance, the hearings scheduled on April 13 and 16 and July 19, 1973 were not held.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On May 8, 1973 respondent Fernandez filed in the Office of the Solicitor General a motion to dismiss the case because of Worthington's failure to prosecute it. The Acting Solicitor General in his report dated April 20, 1976 recommends that the case be dismissed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Inasmuch as complainant Worthington had apparently lost interest in the case and as there is no justification for proceeding further against the respondent, this case, including the counterclaim, which cannot be ventilated in a disbarment proceeding, is dismissed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.