Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
A.M. No. 219 – 116 Phil. 371 – 6 SCRA 45 – Legal Ethics – Professional Ethics – Lawyers Stealing Clients
In 1952, Atty. Casiano Laput was retained by Nieves Barrera as counsel in a testate proceeding. He remained as counsel for three years. But in January 1955, Atty. Fortunato Patalinghug filed his written appearance as new counsel for Barrera. When Laput found out about Patalinghug’s appearance, he voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as counsel for Barrera on February 5, 1955. On February 7, 1955, Atty. Remotigue also filed his appearance as additional counsel for Barrera.
Laput is now charging the two lawyers of unethical and improper appearances for Barrera; that they influenced her to replace Laput as her counsel; that they caused her to disauthorize him as counsel for her; that the purpose of said lawyers is to embarrass Laput to the officials and employees of the corporations owned by the estate subject of the testate proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is encroachment of client in the case at bar.
HELD: No. It was found out that Barrera herself caused the filing of a pleading to discharge Laput as her counsel. Barrera did this because she lost trust and confidence in Laput. She lost trust in Laput because she found out that there were some dividend checks that were supposed to be sent to her but Laput took said checks as his own hence she felt cheated.
Thereafter, she went to the law office of Remotigue and Patalinghug where she arranged a contract. The fact that Laput voluntarily asked the court to discharge him as counsel for Barrera after Patalinghug filed his entry of appearance showed Laput’s acquiescence to Patalinghug’s appearance as counsel for Barrera. This should estop petitioner from now complaining that the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug was unprofessional. On the part of Remotigue, there can be no irregularity for he filed his entry of appearance only after Laput was discharged as counsel for Barrera.
