IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY GREGORIO O. SANTOS. INES VENTURA, COMPLAINANT, VS. GREGORIO O. SANTOS, RESPONDENT.

This
is a proceeding commenced by a complaint charging three persons with
the commission of alleged acts more or less irregular and improper to
the prejudice of the complainant. The persons charged herein are
Attorney Gregorio O. Santos, his alleged agent Juan Villorente and
another named Doroteo Noriel.

The charges against the last
two consist in that the former is alleged to have collected twenty
pesos and the latter forty-two pesos from the herein complainant
without complying with their promise to help her out of the difficulty
which then confronted her. Inasmuch as neither one nor the other is an
attorney, it is impossible for us to entertain such charges for lack of
jurisdiction. The complainant, however, may file the same with a court
of competent jurisdiction.

The charges against Attorney
Gregorio O. Santos consist in alleged negligence in the performance of
his duties as an attorney, based on the following grounds: After the
said attorney had bound himself to represent the complainant and her
husband, Mariano Neuda, now deceased, and two others named Felipa Rus
and Simeon Miguel, in the cadastral proceedings of the municipality of
Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija, for the purpose of reclaiming and securing
the title to certain lots, to wit: six in the name of Mariano Neuda;
two in the name of the herein complainant, one of which is lot No.
3533; two in the name of Felipa Rus and one in the name of Simeon
Miguel, he failed to appear during the hearing, as a result of which
the complainant and her husband were declared in default and the
aforesaid lot No. 3533 was afterwards adjudicated to the spouses Rufino
Agaton and Maria Jarino. It later passed to the possession of Francisco
Borja who had obtained from the cadastral court, which took cognizance
thereof, the cancellation of the title issued in favor of the said
spouses Rufino Agaton and Maria Jarino against whom he had secured a
writ of execution of a judgment in a civil case. The aforesaid spouses
failed to redeem the property in question within the period of one year
allowed them under the law.

The records show that the
respondent’s failure to appear during the hearing of the cadastral case
in connection with the lots claimed by the complainant, her husband and
her said two relatives or friends, was due to the fact that he was then
seriously ill at the Philippine General Hospital in the City of Manila.
The complainant admitted the truth of this fact.

When the
respondent was able to leave the hospital, he went to Nueva Ecija and
succeeded in having all of the eleven lots, with the exception of lot
No. 3533, adjudicated to his clients, who paid him the sum of one
hundred pesos, through Mariano Neuda, on March 17, 1930. The records,
however, do not show clearly whether or not the respondent, upon
receipt of the one hundred pesos, bound himself further to work for the
issuance of a certificate of title to the lot in question in favor of
the complainant. At all events, the respondent himself admits that when
the thirty-day period, allowed the complainant to file her motion for
reconsideration of the judgment of the court of November 19, 1929,
adjudicating the lot in question to the spouses Rufino Agaton and Maria
Jariño, had elapsed, said complainant informed him of such fact. He
then informed her that she still had the remedy of asking for the
revision of the decree issued to that effect, within the period of one
year. From the evidence presented, it is inferred that this took place
in or about the month of February or March, 1930. The respondent
further admits that, whether he considered himself paid or not for the
services he still had to render for the complainant in reclaiming said
lot No. 3533, with the one hundred pesos paid him by Mariano Neuda on
March 17, 1930, he filed his motion for revision, Exhibit D, on October
17, 1930, that is, seven months later, asking the court to set aside
its decree relative to the said lot and to grant him a new trial in
order to prove that the complainant was the true owner thereof.
However, he allowed the time to elapse without taking any further steps
in connection therewith until November 19, 1932, when, after receiving
notice from the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija setting the
hearing for the presentation of evidence in connection with his motion
for revision, for December 16, 1932, he sent a communication to the
complainant herein asking her whether she still wanted him to continue
representing her in the said case. He called the complainant’s
attention therein to the fact that he had already transferred his
residence and law office to the City of Manila. The complainant
admitted having received the letter in question but instead of
answering him, she filed a motion for postponement with the cadastral
court on December 14, 1932, on the alleged ground that she intended to
engage the services of another attorney, inasmuch as she could not
confer with the respondent. Said complainant actually engaged the
services of another attorney Higino Laureta.

In the
meantime, Francisco Borja brought an action against the spouses Rufino
Agaton and Maria Jariño, for the recovery of a certain sum of money.
Inasmuch as the case was decided in his favor and the defendants failed
to pay the amount of the judgment rendered therein, he asked and
obtained a writ of execution thereon from the court. The lot No. 3533
in question, which was adjudicated to them by the cadastral court on
November 19, 1929, was sold at public auction together with other
properties of the aforesaid spouses. This took place on February 19,
1931. Although the aforesaid spouses could have exercised their right
of redemption within one year from the above-mentioned date, they did
not do so and in consequence thereof, Francisco Borja succeeded in
having the provincial sheriff issue the corresponding deed of absolute
sale of the lot in question in his name. On March 31, 1932, and upon
motion of Francisco Borja, the cadastral court ordered the cancellation
of the title issued in the name of the spouses Rufino Agaton and Maria
Jariño and the issuance of another in favor of the said petitioner.

The complainant contends that if the respondent had exercised some
diligence, Francisco Borja would not have succeeded in levying
execution on said lot. Neither could he have obtained a transfer
certificate of title issued in his favor.

There is no
question, however, that the respondent was not aware of any action
brought by Francisco Borja against Rufino Agaton and his wife, nor of
the fact that the latter failed to exercise their right of redemption.
Neither did he know of the motion for cancellation of the old title to
the said lot, filed by Francisco Borja, inasmuch as he was not informed
thereof by the complainant or by any other person. The complainant’s
conduct in engaging Attorney Laureta’s services upon receipt of the
respondent’s communication of November 19, 1932, actually corroborates,
to a certain extent, his claim that they had not reached any definite
agreement regarding the fees which she was to pay him in connection
with his aforesaid motion for revision. However, by filing the motion
in question, the respondent made it understood that he intended to take
the necessary steps to terminate it. Under such circumstances it was
his duty to exert some effort or diligence to that end and not sit
still and fold his arms. If, after transferring his residence to
Manila, he intended to discontinue representing the complainant in
order to save her greater expense, he should have so informed her in
order to give her an opportunity to make other arrangements and secure
the services of another attorney.

To act the way the
respondent did, to wit: to file a motion for revision of a decree in a
cadastral case and then do nothing for more than two years, thus
leaving the rights of his client, who has placed herself under his
protection, in a state of uncertainty, clearly constitutes an
abandonment unbecoming an attorney who is mindful of his duties.

It is the duty of every attorney to act with diligence in all cases,
now and then urging the prosecution or termination of the cases
committed to his charge, be they criminal, civil or administrative in
nature, or simply motions, without waiting for the courts to urge him
to do so, if the clarification or definition of his client’s rights
depend upon the decision thereof, and informing his client of the
impracticability of continuing to represent him, in order to give him
an opportunity to study the new situation and work out a solution
thereof.

Were it not for the circumstance that the
respondent’s fees have not yet been paid to date—judging from the
respondent’s letter to the complainant, of November 19, 1932,
notwithstanding the said complainant’s allegation to the contrary
inasmuch as all that she knows, according to her own admission, is
hearsay from her husband, now deceased—we would treat his behaviour
with some severity. At any rate, we cannot let it pass without
expressing our disapproval thereof inasmuch as it is neither proper nor
just.

It is needless to state herein that the said
respondent should not nor could be held liable for the acts committed
by the aforesaid Juan Villorente and Doroteo Noriel, on the ground that
the former never acted as his agent, nor was he given any share of the
sums of money they had collected from her, as the complainant herself
admits.

Let the respondent be informed of this resolution
for his information and guidance, trusting that he will henceforth
endeavor not to have a repetition of this case in order to avoid more
severe disciplinary action.

Let a certified copy of this
decision be attached to the personal record of the respondent, for
further purposes. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm. Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

Butte, J., with whom concurs Hull, J.,
dissenting: I dissent on the ground that the complainant has an
adequate civil remedy and the case is not one of such importance as to
require the attention and consume the time of this court.