Professional Documents
Culture Documents
08-Laput v. Remotigue A.M. No. 434 September 29, 1962
08-Laput v. Remotigue A.M. No. 434 September 29, 1962
08-Laput v. Remotigue A.M. No. 434 September 29, 1962
434 1 of 2
my appointment of a new lawyer for the administration registration" and that although Atty. Laput was not served
copy of this pleading, he must have come across it inasmuch as from time to time, he went over the records Special
Proceedings No. 2-J of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and yet Atty. Laput did not comply with 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."
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 could 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 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 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 to 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.1awphl.nt
An examination of the motions complained of by Atty. Laput shows that respondent's answers 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.