Atty. Casiano U. Laput v. Atty. Francisco E.F. Remotigue & Atty.

Fortunato P. Patalinghug (1962)

FACTS: In 1952, a client (named Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera) hired Atty.
Casiano Laput (petitioner) to handle the case regarding the testation of
the estate of the client‘s deceased husband. In 1955, Atty. Laput,
contemplating to end the proceedings soon, prepared two (2) pleadings
for the Court. However, the client refused to sign these and instructed
Atty. Laput not to file these in Court.

Weeks later, Atty. Laput found out in the records of the proceedings that
another lawyer had entered appearance (and in writing, on January 11,
1955) for his client, namely: Atty. Patalinghug (one of the respondents).
Subsequently, on Feb. 5, Atty. Casiano voluntarily asked the Court to
relieve him as counsel. Only then (on Feb 7) that the other lawyer, Atty.
Remotigue entered his appearance (in writing, dated Feb 5).

Now, Atty. Laput complains before the SC that the two lawyers‘
(Patalinghug and Remotigue) conduct were unethical and improper.
Laput alleged that they did it with malice, desiring to be the new counsels
of Mrs. Barrera. He also alleged that the two lawyers intrigued him,
prompting the client to lose her trust.

It is also alleged that the two lawyers brought the client to their office,
asked her to sign documents (one including ‗Revocation of Powers of
Attorney‘), and these documents were sent to corporations and other
offices belonging to the estate of the client. Atty. Laput alleged that the
two lawyers well knew that no such powers of attorney was granted to
him by client, and hence concluded that the purpose of the
dissemination of the documents was to embarrass him.

Finally, it was the entering of Atty. Patalinghug‘s appearance in Court,

without prior notice to Atty. Laput, that constituted the unethical act.

In defense, Atty. Patalinghug said that when he entered his appearance,

the client already lost confidence in Atty. Laput and, by that time, the
client herself had filed a pleading asking the Court to approve the
discharge of Atty. Laput as counsel. Meanwhile, Atty. Remotigue argued
that when he entered his appearance, Atty. Laput had already
withdrawn.

The Solicitor General, upon referral by the Supreme Court, made the
following findings: (1) that the claim of Atty. Patalinghug regarding the
client‘s pleading to discharge Atty. Laput is true, and therefore, it is the
client‘s fault that Atty. Laput was not informed; and (2) that the client no
longer trusted Atty. Laput because she found out that the lawyer had
been doing things unauthorized by her, e.g. withdrawal from the bank
accounts (PNB and BPI) and dividend checks from the properties are
being delivered to Atty. Laput instead of the client.

ISSUE/S: WON the conduct of Atty. Patalinghug and Atty. Remotigue were
unethical and unprofessional to warrant disciplinary action

HELD: No. The court finds no irregularity in the conduct of the two lawyers.

RATIO: What happened cannot be considered as ‗case-grabbing‘. The

investigation by the Sol-Gen revealed that it was the client herself that
sought the services of the two lawyers. In fact, a written contract was
executed so as to set the amount of fees for the legal services.

Also, Atty. Laput is estopped by his own actions –he filed his voluntary
withdrawal from the proceedings and the motion he made for the
payment of his attorney‘s fees amounted to acquiescence (reluctant
acceptance but without protest). Atty. Laput cannot claim that Atty.
Patalinghug was unprofessional.

With respect to the alleged document (Revocation of the Powers of

Attorney) allegedly prepared by Atty. Patalinghug, the inquiry revealed
that there was no malice on the part of the lawyer. The only purpose is to
protect the interests of the client. The court recognizes that Atty. Laput‘s
pride was hurt and felt that he was intrigued (pictured as a dishonest
lawyer). He even filed cases with the City Fiscal of Cebu, charging the
client and Atty. Patalinghug with Libel and Falsification, but these were
dismissed.

With respect to Atty. Remotigue, he cannot be found guilty of any

unethical conduct because it was already two days after Atty. Laput
withdrew his appearance, when Remotigue entered his own