A.M. No.

219             September 29, 1962

CASIANO U. LAPUT, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO E.F. REMOTIGUE and ATTY. FORTUNATO P.
PATALINGHUG, respondents.

LABRADOR, J.

FACTS: In May 1952, petitioner was retained by Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera to
represent and handle her testate proceedings. By January 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 January
11, 1955 a written appearance as the new counsel for Mrs. Barrera. On February
5, 1955, petitioner voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as counsel for Mrs.
Barrera. On February 7, 1955, the other respondent, Atty. Francisco E. F.
Remotigue, entered his appearance, dated February 5, 1955.

Petitioner then alleged that the appearances of respondents were unethical and
improper, claiming that (a) the respondents made Mrs. Barrera sign four
documents revoking the petitioner’s “Power of Attorney" purported to
disauthorize the petitioner from further collecting and receiving the dividends of
the estate from Mr. Macario Barrera’s corporations, with the motive to embarrass
petitioner to the officials, lawyers and employees of said corporations, picturing
him as a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted by his client, and (b) Atty.
Patalinghug, the other respondent, entered his appearance without notice to
petitioner.

Petitioner ATTY.CASIANO U.
LAPUT charge respondents
ATTY. FRANCISCO
E.F.REMOTIGUE and ATTY.
FORTUNATO P. PATALINGHUG
with unprofessional and
unethical conduct in soliciting
cases and intriguing against a
brother lawyer. In May 1952,
Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera
retained petitioner Atty. Laput
to handle her
"Testate Estate of Macario
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. Barrera’s
counsel. Petitioner alleged
that: (1) respondents’
appearances were unethical
and improper;
(2) they made Mrs. Barrera
sign documents revoking the
petitioner’s “Power of
Attorney" purportedly to
disauthorize him
from further collecting and
receiving dividends of the
estate from Mr. Macario
Barrera’s 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 filed
his 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. The latter
recommended the complete
exoneration of respondents
Respondent Atty. Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on
January 11, 1955, the administratrix Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera had already
lost confidence in her lawyer and had in fact already filed with the court a
pleading discharging the petitioner’s services. Respondent Atty. Remotigue also
answered, stating that when he filed his appearance on February 7, 1955, the
petitioner had already withdrawn as counsel.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are guilty of unprofessional and unethical
conduct in soliciting cases

RULING: The court found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug

as counsel for Mrs. Barrera, and there was no actual grabbing of a case from
petitioner. Petitioner's voluntary withdrawal on February 5, 1955, and his filing
almost simultaneously of a motion for the payment of his attorney's fees,
amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel for the
widow.

The Supreme Court also held that Atty. Remotigue was also not guilty of
unprofessional conduct inasmuch as he entered his appearance dated February
5, 1955 only on February 7, 1955, after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed with
petitioner's professional services and after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn
his appearance.

As to Atty. Patalinghug’s preparation of documents revoking the petitioner’s

power of attorney, the Solicitor General found that the same does not appear to
be prompted by malice or intended to hurt petitioner's feelings, but purely to
safeguard the interest of the administratrix.

With no sufficient evidence submitted to sustain the charges, case is hereby

dismissed and closed.
 G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellant

PAREDES, J.

FACTS: On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged

Simplicio Villanueva with crime of Malicious Mischief, before the Justice of the
Peace Court of said Municipality. Said accused was represented by counsel de
oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant in the same
case was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having
entered his appearance as private-prosecutor, having securing the permission of
the Secretary of Justice. Every time he would appear at the trial of the case, he
would be considered on official leave of absence, and that he would not receive
any payment for his services

Counsel of the accused argued that the JP Court in entertaining the appearance
of City Attorney Fule in the case is a violation from the ruling in the case of
Aquino, Et Al., v. Blanco, Et Al., 79 Phil. 647. On December 17, 1960 the JP
issued an order sustaining the legality of the appearance of City Attorney Fule.

On January 4, 1961, counsel for the accused then presented a “Motion to Inhibit
Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this Case, “this time invoking Sec.
32, Rule 127, now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys
from practicing.

ISSUE: Whether or not the isolated appearance of Atty. Fule as private

prosecutor constitutes practice of law which violates Sec. 32 of Rule 127 now
Sec. 35, Rule 138, revised Rules of Court

RULING: Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a
justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of
an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an
attorney. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court
as an agent or friend of the offended party. As Assistant City Attorney of San
Pablo, he had no control or intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes
committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, because the prosecution of
criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal and not by the City Attorney of San Pablo. There could be no possible
conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule as Assistant City Attorney of
San Pablo and as private prosecutor in this criminal case.

The Court holds that the isolated appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute
private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. The
appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of
engagement in the private practice of law. The word private practice of law
implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued
practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to
the public for compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of
his said services. It does not appear that Atty. Fule was being paid for his
services or that his appearance was in a professional capacity.

Further, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given
permission by his immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent
the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.

The SC found no irregularity in

the appearance of Atty.
Patalinghug as counsel for
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's voluntary
withdrawal on 5 Feb. 1955,
and his filing almost
simultaneously of a motion for
the payment of his attorney's
fees, amounted to consent to
the appearance of Atty.
Patalinghug as counsel for the
widow.
The SC also held that
respondent Atty. Remotigue
was also not guilty of
unprofessionalconduct
inasmuch 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 petitione rhad voluntarily
withdrawn his appearance. As
to Atty. Patalinghug’s
preparation
of documents revoking the
petitioner’s power of attorney,
the SolGen found that the
same does not appear to be
prompted by malice or
intended to hurt petitioner's
feelings, but purely to
safeguard the interest of the
administratrix. Case
dismissed and closed for no
sufficient evidence submitted
to sustain the