PABLITO IBAÑEZ, CRISTETA SISCAR, AND ANGELINA DE LARA BELLEZA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. GUILLERMO R. VIÑA, RESPONDENT.

An appeal to the “highest form of ethics”^[1]
by complainants Pablito Ibañez,
Cristeta Siscar and
Angelina de Lara Belleza is the basis for this
administrative charge against respondent Guillermo R. Viña.  He is accused of betrayal of trust,
malpractice, and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.  In the language thereof:  “Since the time that Atty. Viña became our counsel way back in 1968 up to the present,
he has not provided us copies of pleadings filed in the lower court and in the
appellate court.  We had to acquire the
said pleadings directly from the trial court and the appellate court, and on
September 1, 1974 said counsel asked for and received from us the amount of
P600.00 * * * although our agreement is he would bear all expenses of our
litigation.  We could sense a betrayal of
trust on the part of our counsel when on the night of March 31, 1976, we went to his house at 139 F. Manalo St., San Juan, Rizal, in
order to ask from him the status of the case in the Court of Appeals and to provide
us with copies of the pleadings but to our surprise, he started saying bad
words against us and treated us like dogs in his residence and told us to get
out of his house as if he were not our counsel and therefore a trustee of the
litigation that we have against the respondent. 
By his actuations in the past of not providing us pleadings in the aforestated cases, not explaining to us the status of the
cases which culminated in his saying bad words to us on the night of March 31, 1976, we can no longer
trust Atty. Viña. 
We are of the belief that his acts as a lawyer cannot keep up with the
standard required by the law in the exercise of his profession and that he has
violated the rules of legal ethics by the acts as aforementioned that he did
against his own client amounting to a betrayal of trust, rendering his integrity
as a person and a lawyer and that
he should be investigated as a member of the profession of law and the proper
penalty meted out to him should
he be found guilty of the charges (betrayal of trust, malpractice, conduct unbecoming
of a lawyer) that we place against him.”^[2]

The answer of respondent characterized the complaint as without
basis and with being “filed maliciously,” the allegations
“devoid of truth, unmeritorious and full of distorted facts and presumptions
with the aim and purpose of [misleading] this Honorable Court and
Tribunal.”^[3]
He admitted being the retained counsel of complainants in an intestate estate
proceeding of Jacinta Siscar Vda.
de Valmores, both in the Court of First Instance of Rizal and in the Court of Appeals.  He asserted that even before the time
required for doing so, he filed his brief for his client “after a legal,
learned and mature judicial thinking and meditation” and after researching
in the library of this Court “and likewise
only after reading all the legal and judicious legal and constitutional
authorities herein and abroad, * * *.”^[4]
While admitting that the information about the status of the case was sought
from him especially by complainant Cristeta Siscar, he denied any allegation of rudeness on his
part.  His version of the incident was
quite different.  He admitted that on one
occasion, complainant Siscar, accompanied by her
daughter, Angelina de Lara Belleza, paid a visit to
him to find out about the status of the case in the Court of Appeals.  He informed them it would act in due time but
that not all pleadings had as yet been submitted to it.  Then came
this statement: “Angelina de Lara Belleza
started uttering in a hostile manner, insulting words and statements against
me, even in the presence of my in-laws and maids – which utterances were delivered
in an angry and sarcastic moods and manners (sic) towards my
professional and legal integrity as their retained counsel.  Hence, as a human being – I was hurt and feel
(sic) offended by said derogatory and slanderous remarks – so your
honor, I told them to go home, as the night was late already and I was feeling
tired and I wanted to rest and have a nice, good and quiet sleep.”^[5]

He ascribed the filing of the complaint of Cristeta
Siscar to the fact that when she wanted him to defend
another son of her, then under indictment of the crime of theft before the Municipal
Court of San Juan, Rizal, he refused to do so.  He was then quite “busy in [his] legal affairs
in [his] law office and advised them to retain another
counsel.”^[6]
As to the amount of six hundred pesos (P600.00), he admitted receipt thereof
but he pointed out that it was intended “to cover the expenses of the
preparation and printing of their Briefs which [he had] already
filed in the Court of Appeals, on June
18, 1976.”^[7]
Complainants agreed “that they should shoulder the Transcript of
Stenographic notes and the Briefs to be filed in Court – but as regard to [his]
legal appearance in the lower court [he] was not charging them
and in fact in this regard and
connection – when one of the oppositors-appellees by
the name of Claudia Siscar gave [him] –
one time the amount of Ten (P10.00) Pesos – for [his] coffee and
taxi fare – [he] politely refused to accept said money.”^[8]  Lastly, as to the furnishing copies of
pleadings, he stated in his answer that he had “done it already” and
in fact [he] gave a copy of [his] Brief for oppositors-appellees to the husband of Socorro Siscar Rivera by the name of Fortunato
Rivera, with an instruction to said couple to pass it around to the other oppositors-appellees including the herein Cristeta Siscar and
families.”^[9]

This Court, on August
28, 1976, issued the following resolution: “Considering the
answer of respondent himself to the letter-complaint, filed in compliance with
the resolution of July 21, 1976,
the Court Resolved to [refer] this case to the Solicitor General
for investigation, report and recommendation.”^[10]
After an investigation duly conducted, a Report signed by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza^[11]
was submitted to this Court wherein it was recommended that “the complaint
to disbar respondent Guillermo Viña be dismissed for
lack of merit.”^[12]
Based on the hearing conducted by the Office of the Solicitor General, the
Report contained the following recital: 
“The testimonies of complainants Cristeta
Siscar, Pablito Ibañez and Angelina de Lara Belleza
were all centered on the alleged incident that transpired on March 31, 1976, at
about 9:00 o”clock in the evening, in the house
of respondent herein.  They all declared
that when they inquired about the status of their intestate case then pending
with the Court of Appeals, respondent got mad and drove them out of the house.  * * * In effect, they seek to establish that
respondent would not want them to know anything about their case and was
treating them badly for some unknown reason. 
During cross-examination, however, complainant Cristeta
Siscar admitted that respondent required her to see
him at least once a month to be informed of the progress of the case * * *; and
that it was respondent who relayed to her the good news that they won the case
in the trial court although it was appealed by the adverse parties to the Court
of Appeals * * *.  After complainants had
testified, they filed a ‘Manifestation to Withdraw Complaint’, dated December 7, 1977.  * * * It was signed by complainants
themselves and their counsel from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office,
Ministry of Justice * * *.  Therein,
complainants state, among others, that they filed the present complaint because
they resented respondent’s irritating and annoying conduct on March 31, 1976
when they inquired about the status of their appealed case, particularly the
extent of, or how far respondent had gone in the preparation of their appellees‘ brief * * *; that they later came to know the
justification of respondent’s conduct, after the customary confrontation and
conciliation meeting called upon and presided by a religious minister of the Iglesia ni Kristo
where they all belong * * *; and that
they learned that there was a mere misunderstanding or miscommunication, as
respondent was irri­tated by the remark ‘Baka kung ano na ang
nangyayari diyan?’, hurled
by complainant Angelina Belleza, which respondent
took as an affront to his honesty and integrity, although what Belleza allegedly said was ‘Baka kung ano ang mangyari diyan?’,
which was uttered after respondent explained the reasons on the delay in the
preparation and filing of their appellees‘
brief.  * * * In his defense, respondent
presented as witness complainant Cristeta Siscar who declared under oath the veracity and
truthfulness of the alle­gations contained in the aforementioned ‘Manifestation
to Withdraw Complaint’ * * *. 
Respondent then presented himself as a witness and testified, among
others, that he had won for the complainants their intestate case in the Court
of Appeals per decision promulgated November 9, 1979 under CA-G.R. No. 5554142-R
* * *, that on the night of March 31, 1976, he explained to complainants that
he could not yet file their appellees‘ brief because
the record of the case forwarded to the Court of Appeals was not yet complete
and that he showed complainants several motions he filed in the appellate court
in connection therewith and advised them not to worry, but to his surprise,
complainant Belleza angrily uttered in the presence
of other persons ‘Baka ano na ang nangyayari
diyan?’, ‘baka may kawalanghiyaan na‘, which hurt
and annoyed him and so, he told them to go home * * *.”^[13]
The Report then concluded:  “In the
light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that complainants failed
to substantiate their complaint.  The
fact that respon­dent successfully handled complainants’ case in the lower
court and the Court of Appeals * * * negates the charge of ‘betrayal of trust
and malpractice.’  As to Um charge of
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, no sufficient evidence had been adduced in
support there­of.  On the contrary,
complainants themselves admitted that respondent was justified in being annoyed
by the uncalled for remark of complainant Belleza.”^[14]

The dismissal of the complaint is, therefore, warranted.  It would appear that respondent was more
sinned against than sinning.  The
incident, which was the basis for the disciplinary action filed arose from a
misunderstanding between him and the daughter of his client, complainant Belleza.  His
reaction to her words which could be interpreted as a reflection on his honesty
based solely on the delay in the decision of a case is quite understandable.  It has been said and correctly so that a
lawyer’s good name in the last analysis is his most important possession.  Any slur, whether expressed or implied, or as
a result of the ambiguity of the words used, can cause resent­ment.  Moreover, it was not only the words employed
but the accusatory tone of complainant Belleza that wounded his sensibilities.  That was all that happened in this case.  Respondent Viña‘ s
conduct, therefore, cannot be said to be blameworthy.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Guillermo R. Viña
is dismissed.

Barredo, Aquino,
Abad Santos, and
De Castro, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on sick
leave.

^[1]
Complaint, 2.

^[2]
Ibid, 1.

^[3]
Answer, 1.

^[4]
Ibid, 2.

^[5]
Ibid, 5.

^[6]
Ibid.

^[7]
Ibid, 6.

^[8]
Ibid.

^[9]
Ibid, 6.

^[10]
Resolution of this Court dated August
28, 1976.

^[11]
He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Ramon A. Barcelona and Solicitor
Dennis M. Taningco.

^[12]
Ibid, 11.

^[13]
Ibid, 7-11.

^[14]
Ibid, 11.