Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 882. July 17, 1981.]

FRANCISCO TEJADA, Complainant, v. VICENTE ACSAY, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Complainant alleged that because respondent lawyer failed to file a case against a debtor in his behalf despite having paid him for his services, a writ of attachment procured through another lawyer whom he had to hire, could not be enforced as the debtor has already sold his properties in the meantime. Respondent denied the charges and recounted the extra-judicial measures he utilized with complainant’s knowledge in order that complainant’s debtor would settle his liability out of court. Complainant moved to withdraw his complaint stating that he was satisfied that respondent had not been lax nor negligent, and that the collection case had already been compromised.

The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment case as recommended by the Solicitor General.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; DISBARMENT CASE; DISMISSAL BASED ON COMPLAINANT’S WITHDRAWAL. — An administrative complaint for negligence(amounting to gross misconduct) filed against respondent lawyer by his client for failure to file a collection case in his behalf will be dismissed where complainant files a motion for its withdrawal, alleging that he was satisfied that respondent had not been lax, negligent nor unmindful of his obligation to him and that the collection case was compromised.


R E S O L U T I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Francisco Tejada, in his administrative complaint and supporting affidavit both verified on June 16, 1969, charged lawyer Vicente Acsay with negligence (amounting to gross misconduct) in not filing, in behalf of Tejada, a case against Enrique de Leon who was indebted to Tejada in the sum of P8,000. Tejada paid P200 to Acsay in May or June, 1967 so that the case could be filed.

Tejada alleged that Acsay fraternized with De Leon and that because Acsay did not sue De Leon, he (Tejada) hired another lawyer in May, 1969 to file the case, Civil Case No. 11832, Tejada v. De Leon, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal but the writ of attachment issued in that case could not be enforced because De Leon had sold his house and lot on March 9, 1968 and he had no other properties that could be attached.

Respondent Acsay in his 16-page answer denied the charge. He recounted in detail the extrajudicial measures which he utilized with Tejada’s knowledge in order that De Leon would settle out of court his liability to Tejada. Acsay sent demand letters to De Leon.

The complaint was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. On June 4, 1974 Tejada filed a motion for the withdrawal of his complaint. He alleged therein that he was satisfied that Acsay had not been lax, negligent nor unmindful of his obligation to Tejada and that the collection case filed against De Leon was compromised.

Tejada took the witness stand to ratify his motion for the withdrawal of his complaint. The Solicitor General recommends that this disbarment case be dismissed.

Finding that recommendation to be in order, the instant administrative case is dismissed and considered closed.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Top of Page