AC 661; (June, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. 661, June 26, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF ATTORNEY JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR., FERNANDO E. RICAFORT, petitioner, vs. JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR., respondent.
FACTS
In January 1965, Fernando E. Ricafort agreed to purchase a car on installment from S.L. Ocampo, Inc. His wife issued a postdated check for the down payment, which was later altered to a current date at the agent’s request. The check was dishonored. The company referred the matter to its legal counsel, respondent Atty. Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. Respondent demanded payment and, upon the client’s failure to pay, advised that an estafa case could be filed. However, respondent informed the company he could not handle the case because the judge of the Municipal Court was his father, Jose Baltazar, Sr. The company retained another lawyer, Atty. N.B.S. Navarro, who filed the estafa complaint. Judge Baltazar, Sr. conducted the preliminary investigation, ordered the arrest of the Ricaforts, and later granted a writ of attachment, resulting in the seizure of the car. The Provincial Fiscal later moved to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence, but Judge Baltazar, Sr. denied the motion. The Ricaforts filed an administrative charge against Judge Baltazar, Sr. (in which he was exonerated) and this disbarment proceeding against Atty. Baltazar, Jr. for malpractice, gross misconduct, and harassment.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. should be disbarred on grounds of malpractice, gross misconduct, and harassment.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated respondent Atty. Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. The Solicitor General’s recommendation for exoneration was sustained for the following reasons:
1. Respondent did not immediately file a criminal charge but first requested the complainants to make good the check, which negates harassment.
2. Preparing the affidavit of the company agent, Tomas Pangilinan, after receiving the complainant’s version of events, was part of his duty to inquire into the facts, and there was no proof the facts in the affidavit were of respondent’s making.
3. There was no proof of persecution, as the estafa case was filed by another attorney, not by respondent, and no evidence showed respondent influenced his father, the judge, who was exonerated in a separate administrative case.
4. Regarding the attachment bond posted by a blacklisted surety company where respondent served as agency manager, he explained he had no knowledge of the blacklisting at the time and promptly advised his client to change the bond upon learning of it.