116 Phil.

, 6 SCRA
September 29, 1962

A.M. No. 434 [Laput v. Remotigue]

CASIANO U. LAPUT, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO E. F. REMOTIGUE, respondent.

LABRADOR, J

, J.:

This is an original complaint — a sequel to Adm. Case No. 219 — filed with this
Court charging the respondent with malice, bad faith, and misrepresentation when
the latter allegedly filed committing unfair and unethical practices bordering on
dishonesty, all to the prejudice of said complainant.

Complainant alleges that by virtue of a duly recorded "Attorney's Lien" entered into
the records of Special Proceedings No. 2-J of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, he
has in his lawful possession records and papers of the estate under administration,
among which are transfer certificates of title to all real properties of the estate
located in Cebu province; that on February 21, 1956 and on September 16, 1957,
the respondent, without notice to complainant, filed with the probate court motions
praying that complainant be directed to surrender the aforesaid certificates of title,
and on December 3, 1958, another motion, without notice, praying that he be
issued owner's duplicate copies of the certificates of title on the ground that the
same were lost, the respondent knowing all along that complainant is in lawful
possession of said certificates of title; and that with the duplicate titles, respondent
and his client Mrs. Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera (formerly the client of complainant)
sold without notice the lots covered thereby, all of which, aside from being unfair
and unethical, were prejudicial to complainant's recorded lien to the said lots and
titles in question.

Respondent denied any knowledge of the recorded lien of complainant and his
retention of records and transfer certificates of title. Respondent also denied that he
was the author of the first motion complained of; that the second motion prayed for
an order directing complainant to turn over to them the certificates of title; or that
he filed another motion alleging that they lost the Torrens titles to the estate lots,
the true facts being that the administratrix, on December 3, 1958, filed a "Petition
for the Issuance of Duplicate Owner's copy", for the reason that she could not locate
said transfer certificate of title in spite of diligent action; that as early as November
18, 1958, the administratrix sought authority from the court to sell real property of
the estate in order to satisfy several indebtedness of the estate; that the court
finally approved the sales made, on October 8, 1959, in spite of the written
opposition of complainant; and that if he (respondent)had known that the transfer
certificates of title in question were in the possession of complainant he could have
taken an easier procedure by merely asking Atty. Laput to produce them.

The Solicitor General, to whom this Court referred this case for investigation, report
and recommendation found that since January 11, 1955, when the widow, Mrs.
Barrera, filed the pleading entitled "Discharge of Counsel for the Administration and
Motion to Cite Atty. Casiano U. Laput", complainant herein (Atty. Laput) was already
asked by the widow in that pleading "to turn over a the records, bank books, other
pertinent papers and documents of the above entitled case which I have handed
him; and assets, if any, to the undersigned administration pending 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.

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.