Laput v. Remotigue A.M. No. 219: September 29, 1962; Justice Labrador

 

Laput v. Remotigue

A.M. No. 219: September 29, 1962; Justice Labrador

Canon 8

FACTS:  

●        Atty. Casiano Laput filed a complaint against Atty. Francisco E.F. Remotigue with unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases. 

●        Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera discharged Laput as her counsel because she lost trust in him. Barrera found some dividend checks that should be sent to her was sent instead to Laput and there were withdrawals from the banks made by Laput without her prior authority. 

●        The one who replaced Laput as counsel was Remotigue. Remotigue did not inform Laput that he will asked the court that the latter must turn over the documents related to the properties of Barrera. Barrera actually planned to dispose the estate but the pertinent documents were under the lien of Laput. 

●        Laput argued that the properties are under his counsel and that Barrera must pay him first as her counsel.

ISSUE/S: 

Whether or not Remotigue violated the Canon 8. 

RULINGS: 

            No. Under Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. In the case at bar, Remotigue entered his appearance dated February 5, 1955 and Barrera dispensed Laput’s professional services on January 11, 1955 and after Laput had voluntarily withdrawn his appearance on February 5, 1955. The complaint of Laput against Remotigue for unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases was dismissed by the court. The court finds insufficient evidence to prove the claim of Laput.