Adm. Case No. 492. September 05, 1967
OLEGARIA BLANZA AND MARIA PASION, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. AGUSTIN ARCANGEL, RESPONDENT.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
Complainants Olegaria
Blanza and Maria Pasion ask this Court to take disciplinary action against
respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel for professional non-feasance. They complain that way back in April, 1955,
respondent volunteered to
help them in their respective pension claims in connection
with the deaths of their husbands, both P.C. soldiers, and for this purpose,
they handed over to him the pertinent documents and also affixed their
signatures on blank papers. But
subsequently, they noticed that since then, respondent had lost interest in the
progress of their claims and when they finally
asked for the return of their papers six years later, respondent refused to surrender them.
Respondent answered these
accusations before Fiscal Raña to whom this case was referred by the Solicitor General
for investigation, report and recommendation.
He admitted having received the documents from complainants but
explained that it was for photostating purposes only. His failure to immediately return
them, he said, was due to complainants’ refusal to hand him the money to pay
for the photostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing said documents
from the photostat service. Anyway, he
had already advanced the expenses
himself and turned over, on December 13, 1961, the documents, their respective
photostats and the photostat service receipt to the fiscal.
Finding respondent’s
explanation satisfactory and considering that he charged complainants nothing
for his services, Fiscal Raña recommended the former’s exoneration, or at
most, that he be reprimanded only. The
Solicitor General, however, feels that respondent deserves at least a severe
reprimand considering (1) his failure to attend to the complainants’ pension
claims for six years; 2) his failure to
immediately return the documents despite repeated demands upon him, and (3)
his failure to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly, all of her documents.
At the hearing of the case before this Court on October 21,
1963, only respondent, thru counsel, appeared.
In lieu of oral arguments therefore, respondent submitted his
memorandum, annexing therewith an affidavit executed by Olegaria Blanza asking for
the dismissal of the administrative case.[1]
Respondent first submits that he was not obliged to follow up
complainants’ pension claims since there was no agreement for his
compensation as their counsel. Respondent
however overlooks the fact that he volunteered his professional services
and thus, was not legally entitled to recover fees.[2] But having established the attorney-client
relationship voluntarily, he was bound to attend to complainants’ claims with
all due diligence.
Nevertheless, We find the evidence adduced insufficient to
warrant the taking of disciplinary action against respondent attorney. There is no clear preponderance of evidence
substantiating the accusations against him.[3]
Respondent’s explanation for the delay in filing the claims and
in returning the documents has not been controverted by complainants. On the contrary, they admitted[4]
that respondent asked them to shoulder the photostating expenses but they did
not give him any money therefore.
Moreover, the documents and their photostats were actually returned by
respondent during the fiscal’s investigation with him paying for the
photostating costs himself. And the
condition of the photostats themselves – they appear to have been in existence
for quite some time[5] –
supports respondent’s allegation that they remained in possession of the
photostat service for the failure of the owners (respondent and/or complainants)
to withdraw the same upon payment of the corresponding costs. Hence, complainants themselves are partly to
blame for the delay in filing their respective claims.
As for the alleged
failure of respondent to return all her documents to complainant Pasion, the
former denies this. Fiscal Raña made no
findings on the matter. The
affidavit of Mrs. Blanza pardoning respondent cannot prejudice complainant
Pasion because res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Still, there is equiponderance of evidence must
necessarily redound to respondent’s benefit.
Complainant Pasion had another opportunity to substantiate her charges in the hearing set for October
21, 1963 but she let it go. Neither she nor her counsel of record
appeared.
But while We are
constrained to dismiss the charges against respondent, for being legally
insufficient, yet, We cannot but counsel against his actuations as a member of
the bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and
positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal technicalities
of the statute. As a man of law, he is
necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a model
citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be
par excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his
professional services. Respondent here
has not lived up to that ideal standard.
It was unnecessary to have complainants
wait, and hope, for six long
years on their pension claims. Upon
their refusal to co-operate, respondent should have forthwith terminated their
professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. And altho We voted that he not be reprimanded, in a legal sense, let this
be a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of what the high standards of his chosen
profession require of him.
Accordingly, the case against respondent is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando,
JJ., concur.
[1] See Annex “A” of respondent’s
memorandum.
[2] 7 C.J.S. 1018.
[3] See In re Tiongko, 43 Phil. 191.
[4] Records, pp. 15, 18.
[5] See Records, pp. 25-34.