FELIX MELEGRITO, COMPLAINANT, VS. EUSEBIO C. BARBA, RESPONDENT.

These
charges of malpractice filed by Felix Melegrito on behalf of himself
and 230 other persons against Attorney Eusebio C. Barba were referred
in due course to the Solicitor-General for investigation and report. As
the complainants were residents of the Province of Tarlac, the
Solicitor-General entrusted the investigation to the fiscal of that
province. At the instance of the respondent the investigation, after
being transferred several times, was set for April 4, 1933, but the
respondent did not appear on that date. The complainants, accompanied
by an attorney, appeared and presented their evidence, consisting of
the testimony of Felix Melegrito and various exhibits. The provincial
fiscal found the respondent attorney guilty of serious malpractice
committed by defrauding the complainants of P8,226, and recommended
that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and ordered
to return said amount to the complainants. The Solicitor-General in
submitting his report to this court said:

“After
a careful consideration of the evidence, oral as well as documentary,
presented by the complainant in the case, the undersigned has found
that the conclusions of the provincial fiscal are supported by the
evidence of record, and, accordingly, concurs in his recommendation.”

It appears from an examination of the record that Francisco Gonzales,
the owner of the greater part of the “Hacienda Esperanza”, transferred
certain portions of it to his daughters Ramona, Guadalupe, Cristina,
and Aurea Gonzales, and that in 1914 his daughters filed separate
applications in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the
registration of their respective portions of the hacienda.
The registration was opposed by Felix Melegrito and more than 230 other
persons. In due course the opposition was overruled and the
registration of the lands in the name of the applicants was ordered.
The cases were appealed to this court, which remanded them to the lower
court for a new trial and for amendment of the plans. The four cases
were then consolidated with cadastral case No. 22 of the Province of
Nueva Ecija, which had been instituted in the meantime. After
additional evidence had been presented, the lower court again decided
in favor of the applicants. From that decision four groups of opponents
appealed to this court, which affirmed the decision of the lower court
on March 30, 1929 (G. R. Nos. 28875-79).^[1]

In February, 1930, the complainants engaged the respondent attorney to
appeal their cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, and
agreed to pay him P6,500. The respondent sailed for the United States
in October, 1930, and returned in March, 1931. While in the United
States he went to Washington and secured a letter of introduction from
the Vice-President of the United States to the Governor-General of the
Philippine Islands in the hope of being appointed a member of the
Governor-General’s staff. It does not appear that the respondent made
any attempt, either in Manila or in Washington, to take the cases of
the complainants to the Supreme Court of the United States, because, as
the respondent states, the decision of this court had become final and
unappealable, and the records had been returned to the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija. The only thing which the respondent did, after
examining the record, before leaving for the United States, was to go
to Tarlac and have the complainants sign affidavits respecting their
claims to the land, for which he collected P2.50 from each of the
complainants; seven months after his return from the United States,
when the complainants had already demanded the return of the money
which they had paid him, the respondent petitioned the Governor-General
to order a survey of the boundary line between Nueva Ecija and Tarlac
Provinces. The object of this petition, the respondent asserts, was to
show that the lands claimed by Felix Melegrito et al. were not situated
in Nueva Ecija Province, but in Tarlac. The complainants informed the
Governor-General that they were not interested in having the boundary
line between the two provinces surveyed, but in recovering the money
which they had paid the respondent.

Felix Melegrito
testified at the investigation that he and the other complainants had
paid the respondent or his agents a total sum of P8,226. Four thousand
two hundred and twenty-eight pesos (P4,228) of this amount is supported
by receipts signed by the respondent or his authorized agents. The
respondent denies having received the sum of P8,226 or any such sum,
but in his answer of December 29, 1932 he admitted that he had received
P2,185.

The respondent alleges that after examining the
records of the land registration cases, which had already been returned
to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, he told the complainants
that the decision of this court had already become final and could not
be appealed, and that the amount involved in the different cases was
not sufficient to entitle the claimants to a review in the Supreme
Court of the United States, and that in case of an appeal it would be
necessary for the appellants to file a supersedeas bond, which they
said they were unable to do. Although the decision of this court
appears to have been final and unappealable when the complainants
consulted the respondent, we are satisfied that he never so informed
them, but on the contrary led them to believe that the cases could be
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that to prosecute
the appeal to the best advantage it was necessary for him to go to
Washington. The respondent now maintains that he went to the United
States for the purpose of revisiting his alma-mater in Kansas and
securing the capital necessary for the development of a gold mine, and
that he went to the United States at his own expense, but the receipts,
Exhibits B, B-1 to B-6, show that the respondent collected at least
P3,530 before he sailed for the United States; that in September, 1930,
the respondent wrote a letter to Felix Melegrito, Exhibit F, inquiring
whether the voyage was to be made or not, and urging Melegrito to
advance P1,000 for the account of the respondent’s compadre
in order to make up the agreed amount. The respondent said that he
wished to reach Washington by Christmas. After the respondent had
sailed his wife and his agent, Benito Diaz, collected further sums from
the complainants. Felix Melegrito went to the boat with the respondent
when he sailed for the United States; and respondent’s wife and his
agent in their letters to the complainants refer to respondent’s voyage
and his arrival in Washington.

The respondent attorney is
guilty of malpractice. He collected several thousand pesos from the
complainants for the purpose of taking their cases to the Supreme Court
of the United States, but he never removed said cases to that court or
attempted to do so, because the decision of this court had already
become final and unappealable, and he was guilty of deceit in
concealing that fact from the complainants while collecting fees from
them for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal.

Section 21
of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as lawyer by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office.

It appears from the testimony of Felix Melegrito that in April, 1931,
he made a demand on the respondent for the return of the money which
the complainants had paid him, and the respondent promised to repay the
sum of P1,500 at once and the remainder at the rate of P50 a month, but
that the respondent has never repaid any sum to the complainants.

For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two years from this date and until he
shall have repaid to the complainants the sum of P4,228, payment
thereof to be evidenced by receipts in due form, which shall be
attached to the record of this case.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Gonzalez vs. Domingo, not reported.