7/25/2019 PA in LE - Capulong and Cabigao

1/4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 381 February 10, 1968

EMILIO CAPULONG a! CIRILA CAPULONG,petitioners,vs.

MANUEL G. ALI"O,respondent.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Respondent Manuel G. Alio a member of the bar, is chared b! his former clients, the

spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulon, "ith alleed #ross nelience tantamount to malpractice and

betra!al of his clients$ trust and confidence.#

%his alleation is based upon the admitted fact that, on Auust &', '()*, respondent received

from the complainants, as their counsel in Civil Case No. &&+ of the Court of -irst nstance of

Nueva Eci/a 0 the decision in "hich, adverse to said complainants, had been appealed b! them to

the Court of Appeals 0 the sum of P&(.11, for the specific purpose of appl!in the same to the

pa!ment of the #appellate# doc2et fees 3P&+4, appeal bond 3P')4, 3printin of4 the record on appeal

3P')14 and appellants$ brief 3P'114, and that said appeal "as dismissed because of respondent$s

failure to pa! the doc2et fee and to deposit the estimated cost of printin of the record on appeal.

n his ans"er, respondent alleed that complainants had authori5ed him to e6ercise his

/udment and discretion in determinin "hether or not he should prosecute the appeal, and to

reard said sum of P&(.11 as compensation for his services in connection "ith said case, should

he consider it advisable to desist from said appeal.

After due hearin, the Provincial -iscal of Nueva Eci/a 0 "ho, havin been deputi5ed therefor

b! the 7olicitor General, received the evidence for both parties 0 considered respondent$s

uncorroborated testimon!, in support of his ans"er, un"orth! of credence and found the chare

aainst him dul! proven, and, accordinl!, recommended disciplinar! action aainst respondent.

Concurrin in this findin and recommendation, the 7olicitor General filed the correspondin

complaint charin respondent "ith #deceit, malpractice or ross misconduct in office as a la"!er,#

in that, o"in to his #nelience and ross bad faith . . . in undul! and 2no"inl! failin to remit to

the Court of Appeals the doc2et fee and the estimated cost of printin the record on appeal,# said

Court dismissed the aforementioned appeal.

n his ans"er to this chare respondent reiterated substantiall! his aforementioned defense

and e6pressed #his intention of introducin additional evidence.# Accordinl!, this Court referred the

matter to its 8eal 9fficer for reception of said evidence, but, eventuall! respondent introduced one.

%he evidence on record full! confirms the findin of uilt made b! the Provincial -iscal of

Nueva Eci/a and the 7olicitor General and their conclusion to the effect that respondent$s

uncorroborated testimon! is un"orth! of credence. ndeed, had complainants authori5ed him to

decide "hether or not to prosecute their appeal or desist therefrom, and, in the latter alternative, to

7/25/2019 PA in LE - Capulong and Cabigao

2/4

2eep the P&(.11 in :uestion as his fees, respondent "ould have retrieved the receipt issued b! him

for said sum, statin specificall! that it "ould be used for doc2et fees, the record on appeal, the

appeal bond and the 3printin4 of their brief. Moreover, if his failure to pa! said doc2et fees and to

deposit the estimated cost of printin of the record on appeal "as due to his decision 0 pursuant to

the aforementioned authorit! he had alleedl! been iven 0 to desist from prosecutin the appeal

and to appl! the mone! to the pa!ment of his professional fees, "h! is it that he filed a motion for

reconsideration of the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissin the appeal in conse:uence ofsaid failure, thereb! securin, in effect, an e6tension of over five 3)4 months, to ma2e said pa!ment

and deposit, "hich, eventuall!, he did not ma2e;

After all, the foreoin acts and omissions of respondent herein dovetail "ith his subse:uent

behaviour. %hus, "hen, prior to the commencement of this administrative proceedins, complainants$

counsel contacted respondent and advised him to settle the matter "ith them, respondent said he

"ould do so, but actuall! did nothin about it.

7/25/2019 PA in LE - Capulong and Cabigao

3/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

Au#u$% 9, 193&

CONCEPCION CA'IGAO a! LUIS ()*UIER+O,complainants,vs.OSE FERNAN+O RO+RIGO,respondent.

Al"redo B. Cacnio "or co#$lainants.%he res$ondent in his o&n 'ehal".

Attorney()eneral Jaranilla "or the )overn#ent.

IMPERIAL, J.:

9n March >, '(?', Concepcion Cabiao and 8uis =5:uierdo filed chares for malpractice aainstAttorne! @ose -ernando Rodrio.

B! resolution of March (, '(?', the court referred the matter to the Attorne!General forinvestiation, report and recommendation.

After several hearins in "hich the parties submitted their evidence the Attorne!General, on April ),'(?&, submitted his report.

%he respondent "as then re:uired to ans"er the report and after various e6tensions of time "hich"ere ranted him upon his re:uest he finall! filed his ans"er on Ma! &1, '(?&.

%he matter "as called for hearin on @ul! '&, '(?&, and the attorne!s filed their respectivememorandum.

After careful consideration of the "hole evidence presented at the hearins the Attorne!Generalfound the follo"in facts satisfactoril! proven

%hat the complainants "ere defendants in case No. ?)(1 of the Court of -irst nstance ofBulacan that the respondent "as one of their counsel that sometime bet"een Ma! and @ul!,

'(?1, the respondent advised the complainants to settle the case for P&,)11, and that durinthe same period, the respondent had been the house of Euenio 8im Pineda, plaintiff in saidcase No. ?)(1, "ith offers of settlement that after securin the assent of said Euenio 8imPineda to a settlement of the case for the amount of P&,)11, the respondent obtained fromthe complainants a chec2 for the amount of P?,(11, P&,)11 of "hich, he represented as thesum to be paid to Euenio 8im Pineda in full settlement of the case and the P',+11 to bepaid to himself for his professional services that the respondent also represented to thecomplainants that the pa!ment of said amount "ould terminate the case and that Pineda"ould subscribe to a motion for dismissal that after obtainin from the complainants the said

7/25/2019 PA in LE - Capulong and Cabigao

4/4

chec2, the respondent 2ept the funds and failed to settle the case that the complainantsrel!in upon the representatives of the respondent believed that the case "ould be settledand "ere unprepared for the trial "hich too2 place sometime after the respondent hadassured them that the! had #nothin to "orr! about# that b! reason of the respondent$srepresentations and conduct, the complainants "ere forced to a settlement in open court, b!the terms of "hich, the! "ere sentenced to pa! the amount of P?,)11 to Euenio 8im

Pineda that in order to satisf! the /udment the complainants demanded of the respondent,the return of the amount of P&,)11 3E6hs. B and E of the complainants and E6h. &1 of therespondent4 that to compel the respondent to ma2e such return the complainants had toappeal to the fiscal of the Cit! of Manila that b! reason of the respondent$s conduct thecomplainants suffered considerable damaes.

%he facts above :uoted are undeniable and do not leave room for an! doubt. t has been clearl!proven b! E6hibit A, the authenticit! of "hich is admitted b! respondent, that he received the chec2No. ')>*?D of the Philippine National ban2 in the amount of P?,(11 to be applied as follo"sP&,)11 to be paid to Euenio 8im Pineda as the areed price of the amicable settlement bet"eenhim and the complainants in civil case No. ?)(1 of the Court of -irst nstance of Bulacan, andP',+11 to be paid to the respondent as attorne!$s fees. %he "hole amount of P?,(11 "asmisappropriated b! the respondent not"ithstandin the fact that he never carried out the alleedamicable settlement of the case and the repeated demands made b! the complainants for the returnof the mone!.

e have here a clear case of misappropriation b! an attorne! of funds entrusted to him b! hisclients to be applied to the settlement of a civil case in "hich he acted as a la"!er. t also clearl!appears that these facts constitute malpractice for "hich the respondent is accountable.

%he contention of the respondent that he had the riht to retain the mone! intended to be paid toEuenio 8im Pineda for the protection of certain bondsmen secured b! him in favor of thecomplainants and that at an! rate he "as entitled to use all the mone! because the complainants"ere indebted to him in a larer amount as attorne!$s fees, is untenable and "ithout merit.