NIEVES RILLAS VDA. DE BARRERA, COMPLAINANT, VS. CASIANO U. LAPUT, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Nieves Rillas
Vda. de Barrera seeks the disbarment of
respondent Casiano U. Laput,
upon the ground that, being her counsel, as administratrix
of the estate of her late husband, Macario Barrera,
in Special Proceedings No. 2-J of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, he (Laput) had
misappropriated several sums of money held by him in trust for said estate and
tried to appropriate two (2) parcels of land belonging to the same, as well as
threatened her, in a fit of anger, with a gun, into signing several papers,
despite the fact that she is 72 years of age.

In his answer, respondent admitted his former relationship with
Mrs. Barrera as attorney and client and, apart from denying the main
allegations of her complaint, averred that the filing thereof was “part of
a scheme to beat off” his claim for attorney’s fees in said Special Proceedings
No. 2-J.

The matter was, pursuant to the Rules of Court,^[1]
referred, for investigation, report and recommendation, to the Solicitor
General, who, after appropriate proceedings, recommended the dismissal of all
the charges preferred against the respondent, for insufficiency of the
evidence, except as regards the alleged act of coercion on his part, for which
said Officer filed the corresponding complaint alleging, inter alia:

“3. That while being such counsel for the administratrix
Nieves Rillas Vda. de
Barrera, and of the estate, the respondent Casiano U.
Laput on January 10, 1955 presented to the
complainant Nieves Rillas Vda.
de Barrera at her residence at 854-D D. Jakosalem
St., Cebu City, certain pleadings for the latter
signature in the aforementioned administration proceedings;

“4. That the complainant administratrix
Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera declined to sign said pleadings but requested
respondent to leave the papers in order that she may first ask somebody to
translate the same for her;

“5. That the respondent Casiano U. Laput instead of acceding to her (his) clients request
became angry and told complainant to sign the papers, at the same time drawing
his revolver from its holster and placing it on his lap with the evident
purpose of intimidating the complainant, an old woman of 72 years old, into
signing the papers or pleadings presented for signature;

“6. That complainant administratrix
Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera intimidated by the threat aforementioned was
compelled to sign, as in fact she did sign, said pleadings against her will;
“

and
praying that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year.

In his answer, respondent denied having committed the acts
imputed to him in this complaint of the Solicitor General and alleged, in
substance, that the papers he caused Mrs. Barrera to sign, on the occasion
referred to in said pleading, was a “Notice for Rendition of Final
Accounting and Partition of Estate”; that this “notice” was legally unnecessary and useless; that he,
however, caused it to be prepared in order to impress upon Mrs. Barrera the
necessity of filing her final accounts in the aforementioned proceedings and
closing the same, because she was reluctant to do so; that Mrs. Barrera had,
also, filed against him a criminal complaint for coercion with the office of
the City Fiscal of Cebu, based upon the same
allegations made in her administrative complaint herein; and that, after due
investigation, said criminal complaint was dismissed by the City Fiscal.

From the evidence on record, we gather that, prior to January 10,
1955, Mrs. Barrera was not inclined to cause the proceedings for the settlement
of the estate of Macario Barrera to be closed; that,
upon the other hand, respondent wanted to put an end to said proceedings since
there was nothing else to be done therein so that he could collect his fees for
services rendered to Mrs. Barrera as administratrix
of said estate; that he, therefore, prepared a petition for the declaration of
Mrs. Barrera as the universal heir of her deceased husband, for the delivery to
her of the residue of his estate and the termination of the proceedings; that
he, moreover, caused to be prepared a notice “for the rendition of the
final accounting and partition” of said estate; that his purpose in
preparing said petition was to induce her to virtually agree and promise to
submit her final accounts by signing this notice; that respondent presented
said petition and notice to Mrs. Barrera, on January 10, 1955, for her
signature; that she, however, refused to do so and suggested that the papers be
left with her so that she could have them read by somebody else; that, annoyed
or angered by this open manifestation of distrust, respondent sought to offset
her adamance by putting his revolver on his lap; and
that, although he did not point the firearm at her, its display attained the
intended effect of intimidating Mrs. Barrera, who, accordingly, affixed her
signature on the petition and the notice aforementioned.

Improper and censurable as these acts inherently are, they become
more so when we consider that they were performed by a man dealing with a woman
72 years of age.  The offense in this
case is compounded by the circumstance that, being a member of the Bar and an
officer of the Court, the offender should have set the example as a man of
peace and a champion of the Rule of Law. 
Worse still is the fact that the offended party is the very person whom
the offender was pledged to defend and protect – his own client.

There are, of course, two (2) extenuating circumstances in favor
of respondent herein, namely:  (1) he
evidently considered himself insulted by Mrs. Barrera and was obfuscated,
because she clearly indicated her lack of confidence in him, by stating bluntly
that she wanted somebody else to read the papers to her; and (2) he required
her to do something really harmless. 
Still, it cannot be denied that his intent in placing the gun on his lap
was to intimidate his client.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Solicitor General,
respondent herein is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct in office and,
accordingly, suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
beginning from the date of entry of judgment in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Castro, Fernando, and
Capistrano, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Section 3, Rule 139 of the Rules of Court.