#20: Laput vs.

Remotigue ,
6 SCRA 45(A.M. No. 219, 29 September 1962)
LABRADOR, J. (En Banc)
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, Nieves
RillasV d a . d e B a r r e 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
" Tes 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 respondent Atty. 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. Barrera had already lost confidence in her lawyer, and had
already filed a pleading discharging his services. The other respondent Atty. Remotigue
answered that when he fi ledhis appearance on 7 Feb. 1955, the petitioner had already withdrawn
as counsel. The SC referred the case to the SolGen for investigation, report and
recommendation. Thelatter recommended the complete exoneration of respondents.

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. R e 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
petitionerhad 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.