Blanza vs Arcangel

Facts : Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion ask the court to take
disciplinaty action against Atty. Agustin Arcangel for professional non-
feasance.
They claimed that way back 1955, the respondent volunteered to help them
in their pension claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands. In
connection with this, they give him all the necessary documents needed to
processed the said claims. But they notice that the respondent displayed no
interest in the process of their claims. After six years, they ask the respondent
to return the papers but he refused to. Respondent answers the accusations
admitting that he received the documents from complainants but said that it
was for photostating purposes only.He also said that his failure to
immediately return them was due to complainants refusal to pay the
photostating cost.
Finding respondent’s explanation satisfactory, Fiscal Rana recommended the
exoneration of the respondent or that he may be reprimanded only. However,
the Solicitor General feels, that the respondent deserves atleast a severe
reprimand regarding his actions; for failure to attend the complainant’s
pension claimed for six years, failure to immediately return the documents
despite of repeated demand by the complainant.

Issue : Wether or not Atty. Agustin Arcangel should be repirmaned for his
acts.

Ruling : The Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to take a

disciplinary actions againts the respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel. There is no
clear preponderance of evidence substantiating the accusations against him.
Respondent’s explanation regarding the delay of filing the claims and in
resutrning the documents was because of the complainants non payment of
the phostting fee. Partly, the complainant can also be blamed for the said
delay because of their failure.
We cannot but counsel against his actuations as member of the bar. As a man
of law, he should he should lived up to the ideal standard of it. Here, the
respondent did not, by his failure to act on the case and let the complainants
wait for six years on their pension claims. Though the Supreme Court voted
that he should not be reprimanded, this should serves as a reminder to him of
the high standards of the profession that he choose.

Accordingly, the case against the responent is hereby dismissed.