This  is a disbarment proceedings against Atty.  Napoleon O. Fontanosa of  Kidapawan, Cotabato, for  malpractice.

It appears that on  18  April 1958,  the  respondent  on behalf of the complainant filed in  the Justice of the Peace Court of Kidapawan,  Cotabato,  three  separate complaints against  Sergio  Orfrecio  (Case No. 151, Annex  A), Mariano  Abellera and  Demetria  Abellera (Case No. 152, Annex B)  and Hadji  Saed (Case No.  153, Annex C)  to collect from them P190.00, P280.00  and P150.00,  respectively, the unpaid balance of the purchase price of sewing machines, interest thereon, attorney's fees and costs; that on  20 April, the complainant and the respondent entered into written contracts whereby for and  in consideration of P100  for  each collection case, the latter undertook to represent the former in court in the three collection cases, and the  complainant bound himself  to  pay the stipulated attorney's fees even  if the cases be settled amicably before trial  (Annexes A-l, B-l and C-l) ; that on 22  August, the complainant terminated the services of the respondent, engaged  the services  of another attorney and requested the respondent to return the documents and  papers entrusted to him upon  which the complaints in the collection cases are based; that the  respondent  refused  to return the documents on which he claimed to  have a lien unless his stipulated attorney's  fees be paid; that in view of the respondent's  refusal  to return the documents, on  29  September, the  complainant  asked the  Justice of the Peace Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato, to issue a subpoena duces tecum  requiring  the respondent to appear and  produce in court  the documents  referred to; that the Justice  of the Peace denied the  motion  for the issuance of a  subpoena duces  tecum on  the ground that the documents are privileged and  the respondent as attorney has  a lien on them; that on 3  October, the complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for the issuance  of a sub-poena duces tecum; that on 16 October, in Civil Cases Nos. 151  and 152,  the Justice of the Peace Court entered an order requiring the   respondent to appear and show  cause why a sub-poena duces tecum should not be issued to compel him  to bring to court the documents  in his possession;  that on 21 October, the respondent objected to the motion  for reconsideration  filed by the complainant on 3 October in  Civil Cases Nos. 151 and  152; that on 29 October, finding the objection  well taken, the Justice of the Peace Court denied the motion for reconsideration; that as  the then plaintiff,  now complainant, could not  proceed  with the trial  of  the  cases because of the respondent's retention  of the documents and papers which were his  evidence in  said Civil Cases Nos. 151, 152 and 153, the cases were dismissed without prejudice (Annexes I,  J, K).

On 28 May 1959, the complainant Gervacio Dauz, filed in this  Court a petition, dated and verified on the  12th day of December  1958, charging the respondent with malpractice and  praying for his disbarment  or suspension.

The  charges  are  (1)  respondent's  refusal,   without cause, to return  or  surrender the  documents  above referred  to unless  his attorney's fees be  paid first;  (2) laxity in the  performance of his duties by asking for  and agreeing to  numerous postponements  of  the trial of the cases entrusted to  him, to the damage and prejudice of his client; (3) an attempt by the   respondent  to induce the complainant's common-law wife to execute an affidavit and state therein that the complainant  intended to  kill the respondent if the latter would  not return  the  documents;  and  failing in this attempt, the  respondent succeeded  in inducing for a consideration the complainant's common-law  wife to  run away with the  trunk belonging to the  complainant "containing valuables relative to his business" (Annex  G);  and  (4)   conspiring  with  the Municipal Treasurer  of Kidapawan, Cotabato, to prosecute him (complainant)  criminally, for his failure to  pay his municipal license for the 2nd to the 4th quarters of 1958 (Annex H).

On  28 October 1959, the  respondent filed his answer denying the charges.   On 30 October, this Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.  The Solicitor General in turn referred  the case to the Provincial Fiscal  of  Cotabato for investigation.

On 17 December 1959, the day set for the investigation, both parties appeared; but the  complainant moved for continuance  on the ground that his witnesses were indisposed  and his attorney was in Manila attending to some cases.

On  18 January 1960,  the  complainant wrote  to the Solicitor General asking that the Provincial Fiscal of Davao be assigned to conduct the investigation because his life was being threatened  by the respondent.  In support of  his petition, the complainant  attached a copy of an anonymous letter where he was warned that his life would be  in danger should  he appear  in Kidapawan  for the investigation.  On 3 February, counsel for the complainant wrote to the investigator asking for another continuance of the investigation  set for  4 February,  for the reason  that he  was to appear at the hearing  of  a  civil case in the Court of  First Instance of Davao. He also alleged that the petition for assignment of the  Provincial Fiscal of Davao to conduct the investigation  had not yet been acted upon by the Solicitor General.

Acting upon the petition of the  complainant for assignment of the Provincial Fiscal  of Davao  to  conduct the investigation,  the  investigator   ruled that  a mere  anonymous letter informing  the complainant that his  life would be in danger  should he appear at  the investigation was not sufficient to justify  his  petition,  the place of  the investigation being Cotabato Gity,  and  not Kidapawan where the complainant's life was allegedly in  danger.

After failure  of the  complainant  or his counsel to appear on the  4th of February  1960, the day  set for  the resumption of the investigation, the investigator heard the testimony of Atty. Juan  Sibag, Datu Hadji  Bagundang, Mario  Palmones, Sr., and Justice  of  the Peace  Felipe Eleosida of Kidapawan, Cotabato, presented by the respondent.

Upon the admissions made by  the   respondent in his answer and the evidence presented during the investigation, the investigator   recommended the dismissal of the complaint.  The  Solicitor General is,  however,   of the opinion that the respondent violated his lawyer's oath by refusing without  cause to return the documents entrusted to him in connection with the cases in  which his service as attorney had been  engaged unless his attorney's fees be paid first; and was lax or remiss in the performance of his  duties  by  asking for  and  agreeing to numerous postponements of the hearing of  the cases entrusted to him to the  prejudice of his client's interest, and recommends  that the respondent be reprimanded with  a warning that a  repetition   of the  acts  or conduct  complained of will be dealt  with more severely.   As to the other charges, the Solicitor  General believes  that  there is  no sufficient evidence to prove or support them.

The  fact   that the hearing of the cases had been  postponed  several times not all upon  the petition of the respondent because  it was also continued upon  petition of the adverse party and in  several instances  upon joint motion of the parties is not enough to support the charge of laxity  m the performance by  the  respondent of his duties  as   attorney.

Likewise, the refusal of  the  respondent to return the documents or receipts  that had  come into his possession as attorney, whose professional service had been engaged by the complainant to bring  the action against the latter's debtors,  may not be the proper  conduct, but is not devoid of justification because the respondent  believed he was entitled to retain them  unless his  fees agreed  upon in writing  be paid first. After requiring upon motion the respondent  "to show cause why a sub-poena duces tecum  should not be  issued for his  appearance  in court relative to  the documents in his possession"  the Justice of the  Peace,  in whose court the collection cases  had been filed, denied the motion for reconsideration  of   the  order filed  by the complainant.  So  that  if the Justice of the Peace was of  the opinion that the  respondent  could not retain possession or withhold production or presentation of  the documents, he could have issued such  sub-poena duces tecum, and if  disobeyed by the respondent,  could have punished  him for  contempt. Nothing appears to have been  done further  in the premises. According to the complaint  (par. 9)  the Justice  of the Peace refused to  issue the subpoena duces tecum. If such  refusal  by the Justice  of  the Peace was  an error, the complainant should have appealed  from the order of dismissal without prejudice  of the complaints, and as such order of   dismissal is  vacated  after  the  appeal had  been  perfected and the cases would be tried de novo in and by the Court of First Instance, the complainant could have renewed,  repeated or  reiterated  his motion for  the issuance  of a sub-poena duces tecum.  This the complainant  or his  attorney failed to do.

In view of the foregoing, the charges  preferred against Attorney Napoleon O. Fontanosa by  Gervacio  Dauz are dismissed.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo,  Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.