G.R. No. A.C. No. 492 September 5, 1967
Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion, complainants, vs. Atty. Agustin Arcangel, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion sought disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel for professional non-feasance. They alleged that in April 1955, respondent volunteered to assist them with their pension claims related to the deaths of their husbands, both PC soldiers. For this purpose, they gave him pertinent documents and signed blank papers. Subsequently, they noticed respondent lost interest in their claims, and when they demanded the return of their documents six years later, he refused. Respondent admitted receiving the documents but explained it was solely for photostating purposes. His failure to return them promptly was due to complainants’ refusal to pay the photostating costs, which prevented him from retrieving the documents from the photostat service. He later advanced the expenses himself and surrendered the documents, photostats, and receipt to the investigating fiscal on December 13, 1961. The fiscal found respondent’s explanation satisfactory and recommended exoneration or a reprimand, while the Solicitor General recommended at least a severe reprimand. At the Court hearing, only respondent appeared; complainant Blanza submitted an affidavit seeking dismissal of the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel should be held administratively liable for professional non-feasance in handling complainants’ pension claims and failing to promptly return their documents.

RULING

The Court dismissed the case against respondent for insufficiency of evidence. While respondent, having voluntarily established an attorney-client relationship, was bound to exercise due diligence, the evidence did not clearly substantiate the accusations. Complainants admitted they did not give respondent money for photostating costs, which contributed to the delay. Respondent’s explanation for the delay was uncontroverted, and he ultimately returned the documents after paying the costs himself. The condition of the photostats supported his claim that they remained with the service due to non-payment. Regarding the alleged failure to return all documents to Pasion, respondent denied it, the fiscal made no findings, and Pasion did not appear to substantiate her charge, resulting in equiponderance of evidence favoring respondent. However, the Court counseled respondent that his conduct fell short of the high standards of the legal profession, as he should have terminated the relationship promptly upon complainants’ non-cooperation instead of leaving them waiting for six years. The charges were dismissed.