Laput vs. Remotigue FACTS: 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. Barrerascounsel.Petitioner alleged that: (1) respondents appearances were unethical and improper; (2) they made Mrs. Barrera sign documents revoking the petitioners Power of Attorney" purportedly to disauthorize him from further collecting and receiving dividends of the estate from Mr. Macario Barreras corporations, and make him appear as a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted by his 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. 1955 Mrs. 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 Remotigue answered that when he filed his appearance on 7 Feb. 1955, the petitioner had already withdrawn as counsel.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. Thelatter recommended the complete exoneration of respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Remotigue and Atty Patalinghug are guilty of unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases. HELD: 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'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 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 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 charges. In re: Clemente Soriano FACTS: Attorney Clemente Soriano, by virtue of a pleading entitled Appearance filed with this Court on October 10, 1969, entered his appearance in the a certain case (L-24114) as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al. This act in itself would have been innocuous were it not for the fact that it was done one year and eight months after the decision in this case became final. Atty. Soriano was in effect asking the Supreme Court to exhume this case from the archives. He alleged that sometime

during the first week of October 1969, the respondent Marcelino Tiburcio, in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of the other respondents, went to him to engage his professional services in two cases, to wit: this terminated case (L-24114), and the case entitled Varsity Hills vs. Hon. Herminio C. Mariano, etc., et al. (L-30546). He relied on these premises without further communicating and ascertaining with the courts on its records. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Santiagos conduct would warrant suspension from the practice of law. HELD: NO. Respondent was simply admonished. RATIO: Atty. Clemente M. Soriano was found guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of this Court. This inexcusable negligence would merit no less than his suspension from the practice of the law profession, were it not for his candor, at the hearing of this incident, in owning his mistake and the apology he made to this Court. It is the sense of this Court, however, that he must be as he is hereby severely censured. Atty. Soriano is further likewise warned that any future similar act will be met with heavier disciplinary sanction. Atty. Soriano was ordered, in the case, to forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has entered as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al.