TITLE : [001] Laput vs.

Remotigue1, 6 SCRA 45
(A.M. No. 219, 29 September 1962) LABRADOR, J. (En Banc)

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. 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 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his appearance on 7 Feb. 1955, the petitioner had already withdrawn as counsel.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. The
latter 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 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 unprofessional
conduct 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. 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 charges.

1
This case has a sequel under A.M. No. 434, 29 Sept. 1962 wherein complainant-petitioner Atty. LAPUT charged
respondent Atty. REMOTIGUE with malice, bad faith, and misrepresentation when the latter allegedly committed
unfair and unethical practices bordering on dishonesty. The SC approved the Solicitor General’s recommendation for
respondent's complete exoneration.

emm / laput v remotigue, page 1