GERVACIO L. LIWAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GILBERTO NERI, RESPONDENT.

Prior to October 21, 1952, the spouses Enrique and Ursula Pineda
requested the complainant to act as counter-indemnitor with the Manila
Surety & Fidelity Company in a bond posted for said spouses in
favor of the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC). When the
Pinedas had failed to liquidate their obligation, the NARIC enforced
the bond against the Manila Surety and Fidelity Company and the latter
in turn collected from the complainant the sum of P2,951.35. Having
failed to recover extra-judicially said amount from the Pinedas, the
complainant engaged the services of the respondent who agreed to handle
the matter on a contingent fee of forty per cent.

As they were his neighbors, the respondent, acting slowly, tried to
talk to the Pinedas, who admitted their indebtedness and pleaded for
time to pay the same. On or about July 17, 1956, when no payment had
been made, the respondent wrote a letter of demand, threatening to take
judicial action if the Pinedas would still not meet their obligation.
On the same date, the complainant delivered to the respondent the
amount of P30.00 as the filing fee for the necessary complaint. The
respondent did not actually file any complaint, for the alleged reason
that debtor spouses had given assurances to pay, although he informed
the complainant that he had already done so. It did not take long
before the truth was discovered and before the complainant was provoked
into commencing this administrative case.

It is an established fact that the respondent had received from the
complainant P30.00 as filing fee. The respondent argues that his
services were not engaged solely “for the purpose of filing the
corresponding collection complaint”, but to collect from the Pinedas
the amount owed; or, in other words, that the respondent was given full
discretion as to the means for accomplishing the assignment. Assuming
that this was so, the respondent has committed a breach of professional
ethics when, contrary to the fact, he made the complainant believe that
the Pineda spouses had already been sued in court and did not return
the amount intended for the filing fee.

Considering however, that the respondent has not yet received
anything for his services and that the complainant has subsequently
been paid, disbarment or even suspension of the respondent from the
practice of his profession would be too harsh and unwind. We only
hereby reprimand him for the offense, with the warning that a
repetition of similar misconduct or, for that matter, any violation of
his oath will be dealt with more drastically.

So ordered.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.