This is a complaint for malpractice filed by Tranquilino Maravilla against Attorney  Cornelio T.  Villareal.   The complaint alleges that on or about the month of July, 1933, the complainant retained the services of the respondent  in civil case No. 2221, Court of First Instance of  Capiz, entitled "Tranquilino Maravilla, plaintiff, vs. Martiniano Bonifacio et al., defendants,"  in which case Antonio Padios, son-in-law of the complainant, was  receiver; that due  to an objection filed against the approval of the account  of the said  receiver,  the Court of  First  Instance  of Capiz appointed a  commissioner to ascertain the improvements and produce of the  land  which was the subject matter  of the controversy in that case; that in  the hearing on the report filed by the  commissioner the  respondent without any justifiable cause, failed to appear  and as  a result the report submitted by the  said commissioner was  approved by the court; and that due also  to the negligence of the respondent, no appeal was taken from the order  approving the report of the commissioner.   Complainant also alleges that the respondent, while acting as counsel for the receiver in the case above referred  to,  betrayed  the trust of his client by acting as counsel for Pedro Perlas who was claiming an interest adverse to that of the receiver, as evidenced by a communication addressed by the respondent to the provincial  sheriff of Capiz a copy of which is attached to the complaint as Exhibit  A.

By resolution of this court of August 17, 1936, the com- plaint was referred to the respondent for answer.

In  his answer, bearing date of September 1, 1936, and filed with this court on the  10th of the  same month, the respondent admits having been retained as counsel for the receiver, Antonio Padios,  in the aforesaid civil case No. 2221, Court  of First Instance  of Capiz.  He states  that in order to  clarify certain doubts regarding certain items in the account of the receiver, Antonio Padios, the parties in that  case , agreed to  appoint Agaton Ignacio, deputy clerk  of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, as  commissioner, the parties stipulating  that  the report to be submitted by the said commissioner was to be final and binding upon them; and that  no appeal was taken from the order issued by  the court approving the commissioner's report because of this stipulation.  We find that this allegation of the respondent is borne out by Exhibit 2 attached to his answer, which exhibit  is a copy of the order of the lower court  of April 16, 1934 disapproving the account of the receiver, Antonio  Padios,  and  reciting among other things the following:

"Resulta de estas pruebas que el terreno cuestionado contiene  una plantacidn de cocos con un numero  considerable  de  fructlferos desde  el afio 1924; que el depositario debi6 haber recogido de  dichos cocos fructiferos  desde el ano 1924 hasta el ano 1932, inclusive, coprax  por valor de no menos de P500 como producto neto; y que dicho depositario dejo de pagar el amillaramiento del terreno durante su administration que importa  P74.01,  importe  que los demandados hubieron de abonar cuando los ful devuelto el terreno.  Por obviar toda duda sobre la produccion de los cocos en el terreno cuestionado durante el  periodo de administracion del depositario judicial, por convenio de ambae paries,  se nombro al escribano delegado de este juzgado como comisionado unico,  cuyo  informe  iba  de ser final para dichas partes, el cual, en presencia de  las partes y de sus abogados, se constituyo en dioho terreno y obtuvo los datos que el Juzgado requirio en su orden  de fecha 26 de febrero de 1934.  El comisionado rindi6 su  informe que se hace parte de esta decision, en el cual consta que, durante el periodo antes  mencionado, el depositario judicial debid haber percibido del terreno cuestionado coprax  por valor de no menos  de P515."   (Underscoring ours.)  The  respondent denied having failed to appear at  the hearing on the report of the commissioner.   On  the contrary,  he alleges that "in fact and in truth he was present at the said hearing in behalf of his client."   (Page 2, respondent's answer.)  Whatever might have been the case, however, we are of  the opinion that the respondent  can  not be held guilty of negligence or infidelity to his  client for his failure, to appeal from the order of the court  below approving the report of the  commissioner and disapproving the account of the receiver in view  of the agreement between the paties in civil case No. 2221 regarding the appointment of the commissioner  and the  acceptance of the  commissioner's findings by the parties.  The respondent could  not properly  have repudiated this agreement as counsel for one of the parties thereto.

With reference to his intervention in the levy and execution of the properties of Pedro Perlas, one of the bondsmen of Antonio Padios, as shown by  a copy of the letter addressed by  him to the provincial sheriff  of  Capiz (Exhibit A), we  find that  all  that the respondent did in  this letter was to claim the benefit of exhaustion (excusion) in favor of the  bondsman, Pedro  Perlas, in view of the  fact that the principal obligor, Antonio Padios, had sufficient properties which could  be levied  upon.  We find nothing censurable in this conduct of the respondent.   He called the attention  of the sheriff to  what, after all, is the  law. While courts will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to  live up to their sworn  duties  they  will, on the other  hand, protect them from the  unjust accusations of  dissatisfied litigants.

The complaint against the respondent attorney is hereby dismissed.   So  ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Recto, JJ.,  concur.