Facts:

• Petitioner-complainant: Leoncio dela Cruz
• Respondents: Atty. Ricardo A. Fabros, Jr. and Atty. Guillermo E. Suega
• Date of incident: November 25, 1982
• Dela Cruz accused Fabros, Jr. of being his lawyer and counselor for his legal problems, for which he paid Fabros, Jr. for his services.
• Dela Cruz consulted Fabros, Jr. whenever he received a letter from South Fortune Motors Corporation.
• On July 4, 1980, Fabros, Jr., as counsel for South Fortune Motors Corporation, filed two complaints against Dela Cruz for a sum of money in the Court of First Instance of Laguna and in San Pablo City (Civil Cases Nos. SP-1748 and SP-1750).
• Dela Cruz approached Fabros, Jr. for help, and Fabros, Jr. assured him that he would take care of the cases, for which Dela Cruz paid him.
• Fabros, Jr. asked his friend, Atty. Suega, to appear on Dela Cruz's behalf without informing Dela Cruz.
• Atty. Suega filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer on August 14, 1980, and subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his appearance on August 28, 1980.
• On September 4, 1980, Fabros, Jr. filed a motion to declare Dela Cruz in default, signing the motion as "counsel for the defendant" and sending a copy to Atty. Suega despite knowing that Suega had withdrawn his appearance.
• The presiding judge declared Dela Cruz in default on September 9, 1980, and approved Suega's withdrawal.
• Fabros, Jr. advised Dela Cruz to allow South Fortune Motors Corporation to take his two trucks, which were appraised at a low price.
• Fabros, Jr. caused the levy of properties in Dela Cruz's possession, which belonged to other persons, despite a third-party claim by the owners.
• Dela Cruz prayed for the disbarment of both lawyers for conniving to deceive and cheat him.
• Respondent Atty. Fabros, Jr. denied the accusations, stating that Dela Cruz had a retainer lawyer, Atty. Suega, who handled all his cases.
• Fabros, Jr. claimed that Dela Cruz approached him with false promises to settle his accounts or return the two mini buses he purchased on credit.
• Despite ample time given to Dela Cruz to settle his arrearages or surrender the buses, he failed to do so, leading to the filing of complaints.
• Dela Cruz was declared in default for failing to file a responsive pleading, and a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and auction sale of the mini buses and Dela Cruz's house and lot.
• Fabros, Jr. argued that the petition-complaint was intended to harass him.
• Respondent Atty. Suega also denied the accusations, stating that he had been engaged by Dela Cruz on a case-to-case basis since 1979.
• Suega claimed that he agreed to be Dela Cruz's counsel in the two cases filed by South Fortune Motors Corporation but was unable to communicate with Dela Cruz to prepare an answer.
• Suega withdrew his appearance due to Dela Cruz's unavailability and denied any connivance with Fabros, Jr.
• Suega prayed for the dismissal of the petition-complaint and admonishment of Dela Cruz for filing a baseless complaint.
• The court required Dela Cruz to file a reply to the respondents' comments, but he failed to do so, leading to the inference that the allegations in the respondents' comments were true and the petition-complaint was false and baseless.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The court ruled that there was no evidence to support the claim that Atty. Ricardo A. Fabros, Jr. and Atty. Guillermo E. Suega connived to deceive and cheat Leoncio dela Cruz.
2. The court dismissed the ...(Unlock)