G.R. No. 1107 : April 2, 1904
In the matter of the proceedings for the disbarment of AUGUSTUS A. MONTAGNE and FRANK E. DOMINGUEZ.

FACTS:
The Attorney-General filed a petition for the disbarment of attorneys Augustus A. Montagne and Frank E. Dominguez, members of the firm Montagne & Dominguez, for violating their oaths and duties to their clients. A commissioner was appointed to take evidence. The Supreme Court focused on four serious charges:
1. The Balmori Charge: The respondents were retained and paid to handle Felix Balmori’s criminal appeal. They failed to file the required printed brief despite extensions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. They returned only part of the retainer after the client discovered the dismissal.
2. The Hacienda Esperanza Charge: The respondents contracted with numerous inhabitants of Pangasinan to represent them in land cases against Francisco Gonzales, collecting substantial fees. When the cases were set for trial, they moved for a continuance. After the court denied the continuance but offered a one-week suspension, they refused and withdrew from the trial, abandoning their clients at a critical moment.
3. The Cordona Charge: The respondents were retained to prosecute an appeal for Gregorio Cordona. They failed to take any action to perfect the appeal within the prescribed period, causing it to be dismissed. They did not inform the client and retained the fee.
4. The Sarmiento Charge: The respondents agreed to represent Pedro Sarmiento in a criminal case for a fee, which was paid. They then advised the client to plead guilty. Subsequently, without the client’s knowledge or consent, one of the respondents appeared as a private prosecutor against Sarmiento in the same case, actively seeking his conviction.

ISSUE:
Whether the acts and omissions of respondents Augustus A. Montagne and Frank E. Dominguez constitute sufficient ground for their suspension or disbarment from the practice of law.

RULING:
Yes, the respondents are guilty of misconduct warranting suspension. The Court held that:
1. It has jurisdiction over disbarment proceedings, which are not criminal in nature but are intended to protect the court and the public from unfit practitioners. Such proceedings constitute due process of law.
2. The respondents’ actions in the Balmori, Hacienda Esperanza, and Cordona cases demonstrated gross negligence, abandonment of their clients’ causes, and failure to fulfill their contractual duties after accepting fees.
3. The respondents’ conduct in the Sarmiento case was particularly egregious, as an attorney, after being retained by the accused, appeared for the prosecution in the same case without the client’s consenta clear betrayal of trust and a flagrant violation of professional duty.
Considering the gravity of the misconduct, but viewing it with leniency as it did not constitute the gravest offenses, the Supreme Court suspended respondents Augustus A. Montagne and Frank E. Dominguez from the practice of law for a period of one year.