Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > September 1962 Decisions > A.C. No. 434 September 29, 1962 - CASIANO U. LAPUT v. FRANCISCO E.F. REMOTIGUE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 434. September 29, 1962.]

CASIANO U. LAPUT, Complainant, v. FRANCISCO E.F. REMOTIGUE, Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


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 "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, 1966 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.

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 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 administratrix pending my appointment of a new lawyer for the administration" and that although Atty. Laput was not served a 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 estate’s deposit in the Philippine National Bank, Cebu Branch, and of the documents belonging to the estate in his possession."cralaw virtua1aw library

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 would 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 a 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 had 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 of 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 respondent’s 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 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.




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






September-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19748 September 13, 1962 - PAULINO J. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 September 24, 1962 - LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14591 September 26, 1962 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE P. DANS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17165 September 26, 1962 - EMMA R. GENIZA, ET AL. v. HENRY SY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17683 September 26, 1962 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. C. N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-13827 September 28, 1962 - BENJAMIN MASANGCAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17163 September 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18185 September 28, 1962 - VALLESON, INC. v. BESSIE C. TIBURCIO

  • G.R. No. L-19605 September 28, 1962 - AUGUSTO R. VILLAROSA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON

  • A.C. No. 219 September 29, 1962 - CASIANO U. LAPUT v. FRANCISCO E. F. REMOTIGUE, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 434 September 29, 1962 - CASIANO U. LAPUT v. FRANCISCO E.F. REMOTIGUE

  • G.R. No. L-13289 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO RAFANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13967 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO SOLAÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14495 September 29, 1962 - VICENTE UY CHAO v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14634 September 29, 1962 - ARTURO NIETO v. BARTOLOME QUINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14875 September 29, 1962 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 September 29, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15819 September 29, 1962 - IN RE: WANG I FU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15836 September 29, 1962 - APOLINARIO DEE, ET AL. v. IGOR A. MASLOFF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16033 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO ORTEZA

  • G.R. No. L-16227 September 29, 1962 - PILAR GREGORIO, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16298 September 29, 1962 - ESTEBAN CUAJAO v. CHUA LO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16481 September 29, 1962 - MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. SANTIAGO PEPITO

  • G.R. No. L-16742 September 29, 1962 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. MANUEL H. JAVELONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16771 September 29, 1962 - VICENTE ALDABA, ET AL. v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16919-20 September 29, 1962 - RUFINO GALLARDO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY]

  • G.R. No. L-17193 September 29, 1962 - MAXIMO MORALES v. MARIA BIAGTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17197 September 29, 1962 - MANUEL S. GALVEZ, ET AL. v. VALENTINA TAGLE VDA. DE KANGLEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17233 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. TABANAO

  • G.R. No. L-17459 September 29, 1962 - DIWATA VARGAS v. SALVADOR LANGCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17730 September 29, 1962 - F. H. STEVENS & CO., INC. v. NORDDEUSCHER LLOYD

  • G.R. No. L-17734 September 29, 1962 - ANTONIO TORRIJOS v. GUILLERMO CRISOLOGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17786 September 29, 1962 - CAMILO P. CABILI, ET AL. v. MARIANO LL. BADELLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17834 September 29, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATRICIO C. CENIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17870 September 29, 1962 - MINDANAO BUS COMPANY v. CITY ASSESSOR & TREASURER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17892 September 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE REPATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17985 September 29, 1962 - GIL SAN DIEGO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18003 September 29, 1962 - ROSARIO GREY VDA. DE ALBAR, ET AL. v. JOSEFA FABIE DE CARANDANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18077 September 29, 1962 - RODRlGO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. SOCORRO A. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-18157 September 29, 1962 - DOLORES EVANGELISTA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF PAOMBONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18217 September 29, 1962 - FINDLAY MILLAR TIMBER COMPANY v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18315 September 29, 1962 - ERNESTO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18453 September 29, 1962 - CAMPOS RUEDA CORPORATION v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18459 September 29, 1962 - NARCEO SAMBRANO, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.