Capulong vs Alino

In 1957, the spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong lost a civil case. They were represented by
Atty. Manuel Alio. The spouses then gave P298.00 (then a significant amount of money) in
order for the lawyer to use the money in paying for fees in appealing the case. However, the
appeal was dismissed because Atty. Alio failed to pay the docket fees and other required fees.
The spouses then filed an administrative case against Atty. Alio. In his defense, Atty. Alio
claimed that he was given the option to either use the money for appeal if in his judgment an
appeal is proper or to appropriate the same for his legal services. The investigating fiscal
recommended disciplinary action against Atty. Alio. The Solicitor General agreed with the
fiscal. When the case reached the Supreme Court, Atty. Alio manifested his intent to produce
additional evidence. The SC granted his request but, after four postponements which Atty. Alio
asked for, he still failed to adduce additional evidence within the prescribe period. The SC still
gave him a chance and scheduled an oral argument but again, Atty. Alio asked for
postponement. In lieu of the oral argument, the SC required Alio to submit his memorandum
which he again failed to comply with.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alio should be subjected to disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. Alio was already negligent when he failed to pay the docket fees. In the first place,
he already filed the appeal, hence, he should have applied the money given to him to pay for
the docket fees. It is clear that Alio misappropriated the funds when he applied the same as
payment for his fees.
But his later actions in this case shows his high degree of irresponsibility. He was given all
chances by the SC but he continually failed to comply with the orders of the court. Such display
of irresponsibility indicates his unworthiness as a member of the legal profession. Alio was
disbarred by the Supreme Court.