EMILIO CAPULONG AND CIRILA CAPULONG, PETITIONERS, VS. MANUEL G. ALIÑO, RESPONDENT.

Respondent Manuel G. Aliño, a member of
the bar, is charged by his former clients, the spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong, with alleged
“gross neg­ligence tantamount to malpractice and betrayal of his clients’
trust and confidence.”

This allegation is based upon the admitted fact that, on August
21, 1957, respondent received from the complainants, as their counsel in Civil
Case No. 2248 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija – the decision in which, adverse to said
complainants, had been appealed by them to the Court of Appeals – the sum of
P298.00, for the specific purpose of applying the same to the payment of the
“appellate” docket fees (P24), appeal bond (P15), (printing of) the
record on appeal (P150) and appellants’ brief (P100), and that said appeal was
dis­missed because of respondent’s failure to pay the docket fee and to deposit
the estimated cost of printing of the record on
appeal.

In his answer, respondent alleged that complainants had
authorized him to exercise his judgment and discretion in determin­ing whether
or not he should prosecute the appeal, and to regard said sum of P298.00 as
compensation for his services in connection with said case, should he consider
it advisable to desist from said appeal.

After due hearing, the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva
Ecija – who having been deputized therefor
by the Solicitor General, re­ceived the evidence for both parties – considered
respondent’s un­corroborated testimony, in support of his answer, unworthy of
credence and found the charge against him duly proven, and, ac­cordingly,
recommended disciplinary action against respondent.  Concurring in this finding and
recommendation, the Solicitor Gen­eral filed the corresponding complaint
charging respondent with “‘deceit, malpractice or gross misconduct in
office as a lawyer,” in that, owing to his “negligence and gross bad
faith x x x in un­duly and
knowingly failing to remit to the Court of Appeals the docket fee and the
estimated cost of printing the record on appeal,” said Court dismissed the
aforementioned appeal.

In his answer to this charge respondent reiterated sub­stantially
his aforementioned defense and expressed ”his intention of introducing
additional evidence.” Accordingly, this Court re­ferred the matter to its
Legal Officer for reception of said evi­dence, but, eventually respondent
introduced none.

The evidence on record fully confirms the finding of guilt made
by the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija
and the Solicitor Gen­eral and their conclusion to the effect that respondent’s
uncorrobo­rated testimony is unworthy of credence.  Indeed, had complainants authorized him to
decide whether or not to prosecute their appeal or desist therefrom,
and, in the latter alternative, to keep the P298.00 in question as his fees,
respondent would have retrieved the receipt issued by him for said sum, stating
specifically that it would be used for docket fees, the record on appeal, the
appeal bond and the (print­ing) of their brief. 
Moreover, if his failure to pay said docket fees and to deposit the
estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal was due to his decision –
pursuant to the aforementioned authority he had allegedly been given – to
desist from prosecuting the appeal and to apply the money to the payment of his
professional fees, why is it that he filed a motion for reconsideration of the
resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in consequence of said
failure, thereby securing, in effect, an extension of over five (5) months, to
make said payment and deposit, which, eventually, he did not make?

After all, the foregoing acts and omissions of respondent herein
dovetail with his subsequent behaviour.  Thus, when, prior to the commencement of this administrative proceedings, complain­ants’ counsel
contacted respondent and advised him to settle the matter with them, respondent
said he would do so, but actually did no­thing about it.  Hence, the complaint herein was filed.  So too, in view of the allegation in
respondent’s answer, to the complaint filed by the Solicitor General, to the
effect that he (respondent) had “the intention of introducing additional
evidence” before this Court, the same designated its Legal Officer for the
reception of said evidence.  Yet, after
securing four (4) postponements of the date set by said Officer for this
purpose, respondent did not introduce any additional evidence in his
favor.  Similarly, when the present case
was set for oral argument before this Court, respondent moved for the
postponement of the date set therefor.  And, having been given ten (10) days to
submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, respondent filed no memorandum in
his favor.

Apart from suggesting a misappropriation of funds held by him in
trust for his clients and a breach of such trust, the foregoing acts and
omissions indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of respondent herein and
his unworthiness to continue as a member of the legal profession.

Respondent Manuel G. Aliño is,
accordingly, disbarred.  His name is
ordered striken from the Roll of Attorneys and his
certificate of Membership of the Philippine Bar, which he is directed to
surrender to the Clerk of Court, within ten (10) days after this judgment has
become final, hereby re­voked.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.