PATRICIO SALAMANCA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY, FELICIANO E. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

The client charges his lawyer with having fraudulently
made him sign a compromise agreement favoring his adversary. The respondent says the signature was stamped
on the document with full knowledge of its contents.

After an investigation wherein both sides presented evidence, the Office of the Solicitor General, found for the
client and submitted the reglementary complaint, recommending disciplinary action.

Required to answer, the attorney reiterated his innocence, asked for, and was granted, opportunity to submit
additional evidence—which he did before the Clerk of this
Court. The latter filed his report, copies of which were
furnished to the parties in interest.

The material facts are these: on March 28, 1948, the complainant
sold his sugar mill located in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, to Juan Torres,
who promised to pay therefor the amount of P3000 on or before March 30,
1949. As the price was not paid on the date due, complainant engaged
the services of herein respondent to prosecute his claim. Accordingly
the corresponding complaint (Civil Case No. 1246) was filed to recover
said amount with interest, damages and attorney’s fees, on August 1,
1953 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. Served with summons
three days later, Juan Torres accompanied by his son-in-law, Vicente
Jose, went to see the complainant for extra-judicial settlement. The
three proceeded to the respondent’s house where after a short
conversation, the respondent typed in Tagalog, a document which he
asked the complainant to sign, and the latter signed after receiving
P200 that came from Juan Torres. Salamanca claims—and so testified—he
did not know the contents of the document he signed. On the other hand
Attorney Bautista swore he translated it to him and that Salamanca
otherwise knew it was an amicable settlement.

The main issue is whether Salamanca knew the contents
of the document at the time he signed it. The Solicitor
General’s Office believes he did not, because (1) it was
written in Tagalog, which the lawyer “must have used” to
deceive his Ilocano client, who did not understand the national language and (2) it was prejudicial to the client,
who received only P200 out of his claim of P3000.

In our view the first point does not. mean much, considering that, according to the Solicitor General, the contract
signed by Salamanca employing the services of respondent,
was also written in Tagalog; yet there is no claim of deceit
in the establishment of their professional relationship.

Indeed, in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, where the incident occurred,
Tagalog is generally understood, according to Justice of the Peace
Gelacio T. Yusi of that town.

The second point besides contradicting parts of the
document, has entirely rejected the attorney’s explanation
which seems to tally with the document and subsequent
events. It is not accurate to assert that Salamanca got
P200 (or P260)^[1] only; the paper stipulates that the mill
would be sold and the proceeds given to Salamanca.. In
fact, the parties foresaw the possibility of selling it for
more than P2000 and so, they agreed that the excess, if
any, would also be delivered to Salamanca. Furthermore,
the parties agreed that if the mill could not be sold, Salamanca could get it back. As to the difference between
P3000 and P2,200, Atty. Bautista said he was informed that
Torres had made previous partial payments.

On the other hand the position of the client appears to be
unbelievable on several counts. First. How could he swear
he did not know what the P200-peso was for? He knew
it came from his adversary, who had asked him to “settle
the case amicably”^[2] and in whose presence it was given to
him (Exh. A).

Second. He was required to sign, according to him, a
paper the contents of which he allegedly did not know; and
yet for several months he made no efforts to have it translated—he having a grandnephew who was then studying
law (Bienvenido Salamanca), who by the way declared
later before the investigator, that his said relative understood the contents of the document, so much so that he told
him (Bienvenido) way back in 1953 that his case had been
settled.

Third. Again, remembering that the document was
signed in August, 1953 and that Salamanca objected to it only in January, 1955, one is apt to inquire, why the
delay? The answer is, because the sugar mill could not be
sold,^[3] Salamanca did not receive the P2000 and did not
want to get the sugar mill back. As respondent explained
before the investigator, his client all but blamed him for
their failure to sell the mill, and so they had a tiff which
culminated in this accusation.^[4] At this juncture we observe that this significant delay had not passed unnoticed
to the complainant (or to the person who drafted the complaint for him), because he dated the charges January 14,
1954 although he filed them here only on January, 1955.

Fourth. Now if it were true, as suggested by complainant that in drafting the compromise agreement respondent
had connived with Juan Torres, respondent would have
hurriedly asked for withdrawal of the complaint in order
not to give Salamanca time to consult others about the document^[5] and then repudiate it. Yet none of this happened.
On the contrary, the petition to withdraw was actually
presented to the Court only when Salamanca, attempting
to ignore it, pressed for further action on his judicial demand.

At this juncture a few paragraphs of clarification are
needed.

When our Clerk of Court was commissioned to receive
additional evidence for respondent, he sent for the original
record of the case (Salamanca vs. Torres) in the Court
of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.^[6] Having found therein
that the question whether the compromise agreement had
actually been fully understood and approved by the client
was debated before the court, he reported^[7] the advisability
of awaiting such court’s decision and/or the Court of Appeals decision if any, on the factual issue. Copies of the
report were furnished the parties; and none of them objected to the suggestion.

Said Court record shows that copy of Salamanca’s complaint to recover P3000 pesos had been served on the
defendant Torres on August 3,1953. Up to February, 1955
no step was taken or pleading filed in the case. Now, we
think, if there had been no compromise, the defendant
would ordinarily have answered on time or the plaintiff would have asked for default, and presentation of his evidence. No such move was taken; obviously because both
parties knew there was a settlement, which superseded the
court proceedings.

It was only when herein complainant decided to repudiate the compromise^[8] that he hired a new lawyer, and
the latter upon reading the court record as then existing
as for default of defendant in March, 1955—and obtained favorable action. But defendant Torres promptly
showed the compromise agreement^[9] and, explaining the
failure to file a motion to withdraw the complaint pursuant
thereto, asked for relief. Acting on the motion the court
dismissed the complaint, in the face of the compromise.
The plaintiff then countered with a motion to reconsider
the dismissal, repeated his allegations of deceit, and
referred to his denunciation of Attorney Bautista in this
court. Wherefore on April 28, 1955 the Nueva Ecija
Court ordered plaintiff to furnish copies thereof—marked
as annexes—to defendant. The court further directed
that

“* * * And the hearing on the motion for reconsideration filed
by the plaintiff is hereby suspended until the defendant is furnished
with the copies of the said annexes. And the motion again set for
hearing by plaintiff” (Italic supplied)

Fifth. To repeat, the above order was issued on April
28,1955. And yet up to March 8,1962 plaintiff Salamanca did nothing in the expediente. His counsel knows—or ought to know—that the complaint could be properly
dismissed by the court for failure, within a reasonable
time, to prosecute or to comply with the court’s order.^[10]
His counsel also is aware of our clerk’s recommendation
that the case here should be held in abeyance until the
court below had decided the matter; and yet for seven
years he failed to bring to judgment his action against
Torres. Why? Because the circumstances do not support
the allegation of deception by Attorney Bautista, who,
according to the evidence, enjoys a good reputation in
the community in which he practices his profession.

WHEREFORE, this complaint for malpractice must be, and
is hereby dismissed. So ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,.
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makintal,.
JJ. concur.

 

---

^[1] An additional amount for court expenses was P60.00 also paid.

^[2] So he said in his complaint.

^[3] In fact Santos Copicoy offered to buy it, but for less than P2000.

^[4] Which he had to make to be able to welsh on the compromise.

^[5] Bautista gave him—Why did he give it, if he wanted to deceive Salamanca?

^[6] Civil Case No. 1246.

^[7] December, 1957.

^[8] Because the mill could not be sold.

^[9] Which undoutedly Bautista neglected to present believing that the litigation had ended, as the parties had made up.

^[10] Sec. 3, Rule 30, Rules of Court.