Laput vs.

Remotigue

FACTS:
Petitioner ATTY. CASIANO U. LAPUT charge respondents ATTY. FRANCISCO
E.F.REMOTIGUE and ATTY. FORTUNATO P. PATALINGHUG with unprofessional and
unethicalconduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against a brother lawyer. In
May 1952, Nieve Rillas
V d a . d e B a r re r a r e t a i n e d p e t i t i o n e r A t t y. L a p u t t o h a n d l e h e r
" Te s t a t e E s t a t e o f M a c a r i o Barrera" case in CFI-Cebu. By Jan. 1955,
petitioner had prepared two pleadings: (1) closing of administration proceedings,
and (2) rendering of final accounting and partition of said estate.Mrs. Barrera
did not countersign both pleadings. Petitioner found out later that
respondentAtty. Patalinghug had filed on 11 Jan. 1955 a written appearance as
the new counsel for Mrs.Barrera. On 5 Feb. 1955, petitioner voluntarily asked the
court to be relieved as Mrs. Barrerascounsel.Petitioner alleged that:
(1) respondents appearances were unethical and improper;
(2) theymade Mrs. Barrera sign documents revoking the petitioners Power of
Attorney" purportedly todisauthorize him from further collecting and receiving
dividends of the estate from Mr. MacarioBarreras corporations, and make him
appear as a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted byhis client; and (3) Atty.
Patalinghug entered his appearance without notice to petitioner. Respondent Atty.
Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on 11 Jan. 1955Mrs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Remotigue and Atty Patalinghug are guilty of unprofessional
andunethical conduct in soliciting cases.
RULING:
No. The SC found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as
counselfor Mrs. Barrera; and there was no actual grabbing of a case from
petitioner because Atty.Patalinghug's professional services were contracted by the
widow. Besides, the petitioner'svoluntary withdrawal on 5 Feb. 1955, and his filing
almost simultaneously of a motion for thepayment of his attorney's fees,
amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug ascounsel for the
widow.
The
S C a l s o h e l d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t A t t y. Re m o t i g u e w a s a l s o n o t g u i l t y
o f u n p r o f e s s i o n a l conduct in as much as he entered his appearance, dated 5
Feb. 1955, only on 7 February 1955,after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed with
petitioner's professional services, and after petitioner had voluntarily
withdrawn his appearance.As to Atty. Patalinghugs preparation of documents
revoking the petitioners power of attorney,the SolGen found that the same does
not appear to be prompted by malice or intended to hurtpetitioner's feelings, but
purely to safeguard the interest of the administratrix.Case dismissed and closed
for no sufficient evidence submitted to sustain the charges.