G.R. No. A.C. No. 2409. January 29, 1988
MANUEL Y. MACIAS, complainant, vs. BENJAMIN B. MALIG, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Manuel Y. Macias filed an administrative case for disbarment against respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Malig, alleging malpractice and violation of the lawyer’s oath. The charges included that Malig improperly substituted Macias as counsel for client Rosario M. Llora while Macias was still attorney of record, harassed Macias into signing withdrawal documents, claimed Macias’s attorney’s fees in another case, and extorted P10,000.00 from him. Macias further accused Malig of corruptly inducing a judge to lift an attachment and assisting clients in fraudulently disposing of properties to defraud Macias of his fees.
Respondent Malig filed countercharges seeking the disbarment of Macias, alleging unethical solicitation of a case, filing a baseless lawsuit for attorney’s fees, making irresponsible accusations of extortion and corruption against Malig and a judge, unethical representation, and maliciously charging the Llora spouses with fraudulent disposition of assets. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Malig should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of by Atty. Manuel Y. Macias.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of evidence to sustain the serious charges of malpractice and misconduct against respondent Malig. The Court found that the core dispute originated from a disagreement over attorney’s fees between Macias and his former clients, the Llora spouses, who subsequently retained Malig. The evidence demonstrated that the substitution of counsel and the execution of a waiver regarding fees were results of a mutual agreement reached during a conference among the heirs to resolve Macias’s pending motion for fees. The Court noted that clients possess the absolute right to change their counsel at any time, and Malig’s entry as new counsel upon the clients’ request, followed by Macias’s voluntary execution of withdrawal documents as part of a settlement, did not constitute unethical conduct.
Regarding the charge of extortion, the Court found the claim unsupported by credible evidence. The P10,000.00 payment was sufficiently explained as part of the negotiated settlement concerning the attorney’s fees. The other allegations, including corruption and fraud, were deemed unsubstantiated. Conversely, the Court took judicial notice of previous decisions where Macias had been admonished for misconduct, including unethical solicitation, filing multiple vexatious suits, and violating client confidentiality, which undermined his credibility as a complainant. The dismissal of the complaint against Malig was therefore warranted, with the Court emphasizing that disbarment proceedings require clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof, which was utterly lacking in this case.