A.M. No. 219; September 29, 1962
Casiano U. Laput, petitioner, vs. Atty. Francisco E.F. Remotigue and Atty. Fortunato P. Patalinghug, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Casiano U. Laput was the retained counsel for Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera, the administratrix in the testate estate proceedings of Macario Barrera. In early 1955, Laput prepared pleadings to close the estate administration, but the administratrix refused to sign them. Laput later discovered that respondent Atty. Fortunato P. Patalinghug had filed a written appearance as new counsel for Mrs. Barrera on January 11, 1955. Laput subsequently voluntarily withdrew as counsel on February 5, 1955. The other respondent, Atty. Francisco E.F. Remotigue, entered his appearance on February 7, 1955.
Laput filed a complaint, alleging unethical conduct by the respondents. He charged that they solicited the case by intriguing against him, prodding the client to lose confidence, and straining their attorney-client relationship. Specifically, he alleged that before their formal appearances, they brought the client to their office to sign “Revocation of Power of Attorney” documents, which were sent to corporations to disauthorize Laput from collecting dividends—an act Laput claimed was meant to embarrass him by portraying him as dishonest, despite knowing he held no such power of attorney.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Fortunato P. Patalinghug and Atty. Francisco E.F. Remotigue committed unprofessional and unethical conduct by soliciting a case and intriguing against a brother lawyer.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated the respondents, adopting the findings and recommendation of the Solicitor General. The legal logic rests on the absence of improper solicitation and the client’s valid loss of confidence in her original counsel. The investigation revealed that before Patalinghug entered his appearance, the client had already filed a pleading with the court to discharge Laput as her counsel. Her loss of trust was based on discovering that dividend checks were sent to Laput instead of her and that he made unauthorized bank withdrawals. Thus, Patalinghug’s engagement was through a legitimate professional contract initiated by the client, not through solicitation.
The Court found no irregularity in Patalinghug’s appearance, as it followed the client’s own act of dismissal. Laput’s subsequent voluntary withdrawal and simultaneous filing for attorney’s fees constituted acquiescence to the change of counsel, estopping him from now claiming unprofessional conduct. Regarding Remotigue, he entered his appearance only after Laput had already withdrawn, so no ethical breach occurred. The preparation of the revocation documents was found to be for safeguarding the client’s interests, not malice. A related libel case filed by Laput had been dismissed, and no sufficient evidence supported the charges of unethical conduct.