Maria L. Aldana filed a complaint for disbarment against Attys.  Francisco  M.  Abad  and Dominador  Somera.  In view of their failure to  file  an answer  to the  complaint within the period granted them, and upon motion of Atty. Francisco M. Abad,  the Court referred  the matter to the Solicitor  General  for investigation, report and recommendation.  On January  30,  1954, the  Solicitor General filed a formal complaint  only against Atty.  Francisco M. Abad,  alleging in substance that the respondent agreed to take charge of  collecting the retirement gratuity of. Feliciano Aldana, deceased husband of  Maria de Aldana, under the Osmeña Retirement Act No. 2589; that the respondent caused Maria de  Aldana to execute in his favor a power of attorney to receive and sign the retirement check; that the respondent delivered to Maria  de Aldana the sum of P696, out of which  she paid to the respondent the sum of P50  as fee;  that subsequently Maria  de Aldana learned from other sources that  the  retirement  gratuity collected by the respondent amounted to P4,000; that without notice to and previous conformity of Maria de  Aldana, the respondent disposed of the said P4.000 in the following manner: P2.500 to the  heirs of Feliciano Aldana by his first marriage; P696  to Maria de  Aldana  (in representation of the heirs of Feliciano Aldana by his  second marriage) ; and  P800 for expenses and fees  of  respondent; that the sum of  P800 retained by the respondent as expenses and fees are excessive and  unreasonable; that the acts of the respondent constitute  abuse of the  confidence reposed in him by Maria  de Aldana.  The Solicitor General prayed that proper  disciplinary action be taken against the respondent; that the fee of respondent be fixed, considering that the  laws  of the United States and  the Philippines allow  only ten  per  cent; ,and that  the respondent be ordered to return to the heirs of the  deceased Feliciano Aldana the  difference between P800  and the  fee  to be thus fixed by this  Court.  In his answer the respondent alleged in substance and effect that he acted in good faith in the matter,  having divided  the sum  of P4,000 in the manner alleged by the Solicitor General, bearing in  mind the interest of the heirs of the deceased Feliciano Aldana both by  his first marriage and  by his  second marriage, the heirs of the first marriage being represented by Lt. Emiliano Aldana who was in a more solvent position and willing to  make necessary adjustments  should Maria  de Aldana  claim  and be  entitled  to an  amount  more than P696; that the sum  of P800 kept by the respondent1 was  not excessive,  considering  that he took many steps, went from one office to another, and  made several  trips from  Pangasiñan to Manila, all because Maria de Aldana wanted to collect the gratuity as soon as possible.

All things considered, we held that while the disbursements made by the  respondent might have been in good faith, because there  are admittedly two  sets of heirs and the  sum of  P800  kept by the  respondent  represented not  only his fee but also his  expenses,  nevertheless the respondent should have informed his  principal, Maria  de Aldana,  about the exact amount paid by the Government and consulted her before delivering to the heirs of Feliciano Aldana by his first marriage the sum of P2,500.   In failing to observe that formality  which seems to be elementary, but  which is  not so grave an  omission as  to warrant suspension or disbarment, the  respondent merits at  least a reprimand.

It may be claimed on behalf of Maria de Aldana or the heirs of  Feliciano Aldana by his second marriage that the sum of P696 is legally insufficient or out of  proportion; the  matter of  adjustment may  be  threshed out by said heirs on the one hand and the heirs by the first marriage.

Wherefore, the respondent is hereby reprimanded,  with the warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.: