G.R. No. A.M. No. 381; February 10, 1968
Emilio Capulong and Cirila Capulong, petitioners, vs. Manuel G. Aliño, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Manuel G. Aliño, a member of the bar, was charged by his former clients, spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong, with gross negligence tantamount to malpractice and betrayal of trust. The charge stemmed from an incident on August 21, 1957, when respondent received from complainants the sum of P298.00 specifically for paying the appellate docket fees (P24), appeal bond (P15), printing of the record on appeal (P150), and appellants’ brief (P100) in connection with their appealed case (Civil Case No. 2248) before the Court of Appeals. The appeal was dismissed due to respondent’s failure to pay the docket fee and deposit the estimated cost for printing the record on appeal. In his defense, respondent alleged that complainants had authorized him to use his discretion to decide whether to prosecute the appeal and to keep the P298.00 as his fees if he deemed it advisable to desist. After a hearing, the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija found respondent’s uncorroborated testimony unworthy of credence and recommended disciplinary action, a finding concurred with by the Solicitor General. Respondent, despite expressing an intention to introduce additional evidence before the Supreme Court’s Legal Officer, secured four postponements and ultimately presented none. He also moved to postpone oral arguments and failed to submit a memorandum as allowed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Manuel G. Aliño should be held administratively liable for gross negligence, deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office for failing to remit the docket fee and deposit for printing, resulting in the dismissal of his clients’ appeal, and for misappropriating or improperly handling funds held in trust.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross negligence and misconduct warranting disbarment. The Supreme Court found the evidence fully supported the findings of the Provincial Fiscal and Solicitor General, rejecting respondent’s defense as unworthy of credence. The Court noted that if complainants had authorized him to decide on desisting from the appeal and to keep the money as fees, respondent would have retrieved the receipt he issued specifying the purposes for the P298.00. Furthermore, his act of filing a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal to secure an extension of over five months to make the payment and deposit, which he still failed to do, contradicted his claim of authorized desistance. His subsequent behavior—failing to settle with complainants when advised, not presenting promised additional evidence despite multiple postponements, and failing to submit a memorandum—demonstrated irresponsibility and untrustworthiness. The acts indicated a misappropriation of funds held in trust and a breach of that trust. Accordingly, the Court ordered respondent disbarred, his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and his certificate of membership revoked, with directive to surrender it to the Clerk of Court within ten days after finality of the judgment.