G.R. No. A.C. No. 217 November 27, 1968
Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera, complainant, vs. Casiano U. Laput, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera, the 72-year-old administratrix of her late husband’s estate, sought the disbarment of her counsel, respondent Atty. Casiano U. Laput. The charges included misappropriation of estate funds, attempting to appropriate estate lands, and coercion. After investigation, the Solicitor General recommended dismissal of all charges except for the act of coercion. The specific allegation was that on January 10, 1955, at the complainant’s residence, Atty. Laput presented certain pleadings for her signature in the administration proceedings. When she declined to sign and requested to have the papers translated first, he became angry, drew his revolver from its holster, and placed it on his lap to intimidate her into signing. Complainant, intimidated, signed the papers against her will. In his defense, respondent admitted the attorney-client relationship but denied the allegations, claiming the complaint was a scheme to avoid paying his attorney’s fees. He explained the papers were a “Notice for Rendition of Final Accounting and Partition of Estate,” which was legally unnecessary but prepared to impress upon the reluctant complainant the need to close the estate proceedings so he could collect his fees.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. Casiano U. Laput is guilty of gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action for intimidating his elderly client with a firearm to compel her to sign legal documents.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. The Court found from the evidence that respondent, angered by his client’s manifestation of distrust when she wanted the papers read by someone else, sought to offset her refusal by placing his revolver on his lap. Although he did not point it at her, the display was intended to and did intimidate the 72-year-old complainant into signing the petition and notice. The Court condemned these acts as improper and censurable, made more so by the respondent’s status as a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court dealing with his own elderly client. While noting extenuating circumstances (respondent felt insulted by the lack of confidence and the required act was harmless), the Court emphasized his intent to intimidate. Accordingly, adopting the Solicitor General’s recommendation, respondent Atty. Casiano U. Laput is found guilty of gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year from the date of entry of judgment.