View full case

NENITA D. SANCHEZ v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS

FACTS:

Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez sought the legal services of respondent Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to represent her in the annulment of her marriage. They agreed on a fee of P150,000, plus an appearance fee of P5,000 per hearing. Complainant gave respondent an initial payment of P90,000. However, she later discovered that respondent planned to file a petition for legal separation instead of an annulment. Respondent also demanded a higher fee for the annulment. Complainant withdrew the case and requested a refund of the amounts she had paid, but respondent refused, claiming that he had already started working on the case. Complainant sent a demand letter through another lawyer, but respondent dismissed it as a mere scrap of paper.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that respondent was lacking in knowledge and skill and recommended that he return P30,000 to complainant. The IBP also found that respondent's offensive language against complainant's lawyer violated professional rules.

The respondent, Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos, was held administratively liable for misconduct in his professional relationship with the complainant, Nenita D. Sanchez. The respondent offered his services as a lawyer to handle the action for the annulment of marriage for the complainant and required her to pay P150,000.00 as attorney's fees. The complainant paid the respondent a total of P70,000.00. However, there was confusion as to whether the amount was intended for the filing of the annulment case or for legal separation. The respondent himself appeared to be confused about the action he was going to file, as stated in his verified Answer. The complainant was still legally married to another person and intended to file a petition for annulment to free herself from the marriage bond. On the other hand, the respondent suggested filing a legal separation case. The respondent's confusion about the grounds for legal separation was also apparent in his Answer. The issue before the court was whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct and whether he should be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent lawyer misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the complainant.

  2. Whether the respondent lawyer breached his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Whether the respondent is entitled to attorney's fees despite not performing the contemplated tasks for the client.

  4. Whether the respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresentation of his professional competence and for not conducting himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards his professional colleague.

  5. Whether the respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using offensive and abusive language towards his fellow attorney.

  6. Whether the respondent's statement in his answer constituted simple misconduct.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent lawyer misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the complainant. The respondent, who was supposed to assist the complainant in filing a petition for annulment of marriage, advised the complainant to file a petition for legal separation instead, which was not in line with the complainant's intention to marry her British fiancé. The court found that the respondent did not know the distinction between the grounds for legal separation and annulment of marriage, despite being expected to have basic knowledge of the law in these areas. This amounted to a misrepresentation of his professional competence.

  2. Yes, the respondent lawyer breached his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court held that the respondent violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.01, 18.02, and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These rules require a lawyer to serve the client with competence and diligence, not to handle any legal matter without adequate preparation, and not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. The respondent's failure to properly advise the complainant and provide the appropriate legal assistance constituted a breach of these duties.

  3. The respondent is not entitled to attorney's fees because he did not begin to perform the tasks he was supposed to do for the client. The attorney who fails to accomplish the tasks expected of him during his professional engagement does not discharge his professional responsibility and ethical duty towards his client. The respondent is guilty of misconduct and may be ordered to restitute the amount received from the client, subject to the rule of quantum meruit.

  4. The respondent shall be fined for his misrepresentation of his professional competence and shall be ordered to return the entire amount received from the client, plus legal interest.

  5. Yes, the respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using offensive and abusive language towards his fellow attorney. The Court emphasizes the duty of lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their professional colleagues and to avoid using language that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. The respondent's statement in his answer that the demand should be treated "as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed... to the urinal project of the MMDA" constituted simple misconduct.

  6. The Court affirmed the resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors and modified it by imposing a fine of P10,000 on the respondent for misrepresenting his professional competence to the client. The Court also reprimanded the respondent for his use of offensive and improper language towards his fellow attorney and issued a stern warning that a repetition of the offense shall be severely punished. Additionally, the Court ordered the respondent to return the sum of P70,000 to the complainant, plus legal interest of 6% per annum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers are expected to have knowledge of the law and should keep themselves updated on legal developments.

  • Lawyers should be able to differentiate between the grounds for legal separation and annulment of marriage.

  • Lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence.

  • Lawyers should not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.

  • Lawyers should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them.

  • Attorneys are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for services performed at the special instance and request of their clients. The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between the client and the attorney, or based on quantum meruit in the absence of a written agreement.

  • The determination of attorney's fees must be reasonable and based on the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney.

  • The court's supervision of lawyer's compensation aims to ensure the reasonableness of the fees charged and to preserve the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.

  • Attorneys should conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their professional colleagues.

  • Lawyers are mandated to abstain from offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause.

  • Lawyers must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their professional colleagues, and avoid using language that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.

  • Lawyers have a duty to maintain the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by using dignified language in their pleadings and professional dealings.

  • The adversarial nature of the legal system does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language by lawyers.

  • The use of offensive and improper language by a lawyer constitutes simple misconduct and may result in reprimand and fines.