IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF ATTORNEY JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR. FERNANDO E. RICAFORT, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR., RESPONDENT.

In January, 1965, Fernando E. Ricafort
agreed to purchase on installment from S. L. Ocampo,
Inc. of San Fernando, Pampanga, an Austin
1100 De Luxe Saloon, for P12,465.30.  The sale was negotiated by Tomas Pangilinan, a company agent.  The car was delivered to Ricafort
at his residence at Sta. Rita, Pampanga.  On January 20, 1965, to cover the down
payment of P3,133.00, Lydia P. Ricafort,
wife of Fernando E. Ricafort, issued a PNCB Check C-86958-M,
postdated March 31, 1965.  Cesar Ma. Ocam­po,
manager of S.L. Ocampo, Inc., rejected that check,
for it trenches upon company policy.  On January 23, 1965, Pangilinan
returned to the Ricafort
residence.  He requested that the check
be made current.  Thereupon, Lydia P. Ricafort erased the date “March 31”, superimposed
the date “January 23”.  She
signed her name on top of the corrected date. 
On January 26 following, the company presented the
check for payment.  The drawee bank, the Philippine National Cooperative Bank,
dishonored said check with the notation “Not arranged for”.

It was then that S.L. Ocampo, Inc.
referred the matter to its legal counsel, respondent Jose G. Baltazar, Jr.  On February 9, 1965, respondent wrote
petitioner Fernando E. Ricafort, re­questing the
latter to redeem the check in three (3) days; other­wise, criminal action would
be filed.  By letter of February 11, 1965, petitioner
replied.  He there alleged that the
agreement bet­ween him and Tomas Pangilinan was that
the check was not to be cashed or negotiated until March 31, 1965. 
Manager Ocampo de­nied Pangilinan’s
authority.  Respondent obtained Pangilinan’s affidavit. 
He advised the company that an estafa
case could be filed against the Ricaforts.  He, however, informed the company that he
could not handle the case because the judge of the Munici­pal Court of San
Fernando, Pampanga, is his father, Jose Balta­zar, Sr.

On February 23, 1965, a criminal complaint for estafa was filed against Ricafort
and his wife in the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga,
by Pedro T. Sarmiento, assistant manager of S.L. Ocampo, Inc.  For
this case, the company retained the services of Atty. N.B.S. Navarro.  On the same date that the complaint was
filed, Judge Jose Baltazar, Sr. conducted a pre­liminary
investigation, ordered the arrest of the couple, fixed their bail at P2,000 each, and directed the transmittal of the re­cord to
the provincial fiscal for the filing of the information.

On March 8, 1965,
S.L. Ocampo, Inc., through Atty. Na­varro, petitioned
for a writ of attachment in the criminal case. 
The ground relied upon is that the accused “have concealed, re­moved,
or disposed of their personal property or they are about to do so”.  Judge Jose Baltazar,
Sr. granted the petition on March 10, upon a P12,465.30
-bond posted by the Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.  By virtue of this writ, the Austin
car was seized from the possession of the Ricaforts.

On March 17, 1965,
Atty. Ubaldo Lalin, counsel
of the Ricaforts, requested the fiscal for a
reinvestigation of the estafa case.  Reinvestigation was had.  On March
24, 1966, Provincial Fiscal Regidor Aglipay and Special Counsel Jose P. Bondoc
lodged with the municipal court a motion to dismiss the case.  Ground therefor is
that the “evidence on hand is insufficient to establish even a probable
cause against the accused much less prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt”.  On June 29, 1966, this motion was denied by Judge Baltazar.  Failing in
their effort to secure a reconsideration, the Ricaforts went to the Court of Appeals [CA-G.R. No.
38091-R] for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, with a prayer for
preliminary injunction.  On September 20, 1966, the Court of
Appeals issued a temporary restraining order. 
This case is pending decision.

Offshoot of the foregoing were the twin moves of the Ricaforts:  an
administrative charge against Judge Jose Baltazar,
Sr.; and the present disbarment proceeding against the latter’s son, Atty. Jose
G. Baltazar, Jr., on grounds of malpractice, gross
misconduct and harassment.

The case against Judge Baltazar, Sr.
was investigated by Judge Honorio Romero, executive
judge of the Fifth Judicial District.  In
that case, Judge Romero recommended exoneration of Judge Baltazar.  The Undersecretary of Justice approved the
recommendation.

We referred to the Solicitor General the petition for disbar­ment
against Atty. Jose G. Baltazar, Jr.  Hearings were con­ducted by Assistant
Solicitor-General Felicisimo R. Rosete.  On April
18, 1967, the Solicitor General submitted his report, recommended
that respondent Atty. Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. be
exonerated.

For the reasons following, the Solicitor General’s recom­mendation
should be sustained:

First, respondent did not right away file an estafa charge against complainant and his wife.  He requested them first to make good the
check.  This act belies harassment,
malpractice or misconduct.  Upon the
couple’s failure to do so, it was but natural for respondent to counsel his
client to take steps to pro­tect the latter’s interests.

Second, the fact that respondent caused to be typewritten
the affidavit of Pangilinan, should not be taken
against him.  On February 18, 1965, when that affidavit was
prepared, respondent had already received from complainant the letter of
February 11, stating that he [complainant] had an agreement with Pangilinan that the check was not to be cashed or
negotiated until March 31, 1965.  It became respondent’s duty to inquire about
the truth from Pangilinan.  The result was Pangilinan’s
affidavit.  In this affidavit, Pangilinan stated that the agreement between him and the
spouses Ricafort was that the car would be delivered
upon a down payment of P3,133.00; that he agreed to
accept the check “considering that they looked to be respectable”,
and that they delivered the check without informing him that they had no funds
to cover the amount thereof.  The facts
stated in the affidavit are Pangilinan’s.  Nothing in the record would show that those
facts are of respondent’s making.

Third, neither is there proof of persecution.  The estafa
case was lodged in the court of Judge Baltazar, Sr. –
not by re­spondent but by another attorney, N.B.S. Navarro.  The evidence does not show that respondent
influenced his father, the Judge.  In
fact, the Judge was exonerated from the administrative charges against him.

Fourth, with reference to the bond to procure a writ of
attach­ment, it is true that Asian Surety & Insurance Co. Inc. was black­listed.  Respondent signed that bond as agency manager
of the surety company.  But he explained
that at the time he signed the bond, he had no knowledge that it was
blacklisted; and that promptly, upon learning of that fact, he advised his
client, S.L. Ocampo, Inc. to change the same.

Upon the record, we vote to dismiss the complaint for malpractice
against respondent and to exonerate him from the charges.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.