Emilio Capulong vs Manuel Aliño

A.C. No. 381 – 130 Phil. 510 – 22 SCRA 491 – Legal Ethics – High Degree of Irresponsibility a Ground for Disbarment

In 1957, the spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong lost a civil case. They were represented by Atty. Manuel Aliño. The spouses then gave (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. Aliño failed to pay the docket fees and other required fees.

The spouses then filed an administrative case against Atty. Aliño. In his defense, Atty. Aliño 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. Aliño. The Solicitor General agreed with the fiscal. When the case reached the Supreme Court, Atty. Aliño manifested his intent to produce additional evidence. The SC granted his request but, after four postponements which Atty. Aliño asked for, he still failed to adduce additional evidence. The SC still gave him a chance and scheduled an oral argument but again, Atty. Aliño asked for postponement. In lieu of the oral argument, the SC required Aliño to submit his memorandum which he again failed to comply with.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aliño should be subjected to disciplinary action.

HELD: Yes. Aliño 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 Aliño 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. Aliño was disbarred by the Supreme Court.

Read full text.