Atty. Casiano U. Laput Vs Atty. Francisco E.F. Remotigue & Atty. Fortunato P.

Patalinghug
(1962)

Facts:
In 1952, a client (named Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera) hired Atty. Casiano Laput (petitioner) to
handle the case regarding the testation of the estate of the client‘s deceased husband. In 1955,
Atty. Laput, contemplating to end the proceedings soon, prepared two (2) pleadings for the
Court. However, the client refused to sign these and instructed Atty. Laput not to file these in
Court.

Weeks later, Atty. Laput found out in the records of the proceedings that another lawyer had
entered appearance (and in writing, on January 11, 1955) for his client, namely: Atty.
Patalinghug (one of the respondents). Subsequently, on Feb. 5, Atty. Casiano voluntarily asked
the Court to relieve him as counsel. Only then (on Feb 7) that the other lawyer, Atty. Remotigue
entered his appearance (in writing, dated Feb 5).

Now, Atty. Laput complains before the SC that the two lawyers‘ (Patalinghug and Remotigue)
conduct were unethical and improper. Laput alleged that they did it with malice, desiring to be
the new counsels of Mrs. Barrera. He also alleged that the two lawyers intrigued him,
prompting the client to lose her trust.

It is also alleged that the two lawyers brought the client to their office, asked her to sign
documents (one including ‗Revocation of Powers of Attorney‘), and these documents were sent
to corporations and other offices belonging to the estate of the client. Atty. Laput alleged that
the two lawyers well knew that no such powers of attorney was granted to him by client, and
hence concluded that the purpose of the dissemination of the documents was to embarrass
him.

Finally, it was the entering of Atty. Patalinghug‘s appearance in Court, without prior notice to
Atty. Laput, that constituted the unethical act.

In defense, Atty. Patalinghug said that when he entered his appearance, the client already lost
confidence in Atty. Laput and, by that time, the client herself had filed a pleading asking the
Court to approve the discharge of Atty. Laput as counsel. Meanwhile, Atty. Remotigue argued
that when he entered his appearance, Atty. Laput had already withdrawn.

The Solicitor General, upon referral by the Supreme Court, made the following findings: (1) that
the claim of Atty. Patalinghug regarding the client‘s pleading to discharge Atty. Laput is true,
and therefore, it is the client‘s fault that Atty. Laput was not informed; and (2) that the client no
longer trusted Atty. Laput because she found out that the lawyer had been doing things
unauthorized by her, e.g. withdrawal from the bank accounts (PNB and BPI) and dividend
checks from the properties are being delivered to Atty. Laput instead of the client.

Issue:
Whether or not, the conduct of Atty. Patalinghug and Atty. Remotigue were unethical and
unprofessional to warrant disciplinary action

Ruling:
No. The court finds no irregularity in the conduct of the two lawyers.

What happened cannot be considered as ‗case-grabbing‘. The investigation by the Sol-Gen

revealed that it was the client herself that sought the services of the two lawyers. In fact, a
written contract was executed so as to set the amount of fees for the legal services.

Also, Atty. Laput is estopped by his own actions –he filed his voluntary withdrawal from the
proceedings and the motion he made for the payment of his attorney‘s fees amounted to
acquiescence (reluctant acceptance but without protest). Atty. Laput cannot claim that Atty.
Patalinghug was unprofessional.

With respect to the alleged document (Revocation of the Powers of Attorney) allegedly
prepared by Atty. Patalinghug, the inquiry revealed that there was no malice on the part of the
lawyer. The only purpose is to protect the interests of the client. The court recognizes that Atty.
Laput‘s pride was hurt and felt that he was intrigued (pictured as a dishonest lawyer). He even
filed cases with the City Fiscal of Cebu, charging the client and Atty. Patalinghug with Libel and
Falsification, but these were dismissed.

With respect to Atty. Remotigue, he cannot be found guilty of any unethical conduct because it
was already two days after Atty. Laput withdrew his appearance, when Remotigue entered his
own.