FERNANDO, NIKKI LUZ C.

1
1C LTL (7 Feb. 2015)

ERLINDA FOSTER, Complainant, versus ATTY. JAIME V.

AGTANG, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10579
EN BANC
10 December 2014
Issue of the Case
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Opinion on the Decision
In view of the facts of this case, I am with the Courts
decision for the disbarment of Atty. Jaime V. Agtang,
respondent. I find that the respondent is guilty of violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Revised
Rules of Court.
I.

Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR

Under this rule, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent is
guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct. The overpricing act
of the respondent is customarily related to depravity and
dishonesty, which falls under this rule. His defense that the
complainant was the one who insisted, is untenable. It is
impracticable for the complainant to propose an additional
expense to further burden her financial resources just to
initiate her complaint in the trial court. Similarly, supposed
that the complainant is more than willing to give out an
excessive amount of money, as a lawyer, the respondent
should not have accepted the money in the first place, in
accordance with the CPR. Further, respondent insisted and
demanded for P50,000 as representation expenses
allegedly for the judge handling the case, in exchange for a
favorable decision. Clearly, this act of the respondent
squarely falls to be a gross misconduct.
II.

Rule 16.4, Canon 16 of the CPR

Under this rule, a lawyer shall not borrow money from

his client xxx neither shall a lawyer lend money to his client
except, when in the interest of justice xxx. The Court is
precise in saying, that when the respondent asked for a loan
of P100,000 for the repair of his car, he is in violation. In
addition, what aggravated the violation is that; the
respondent even implored the complainant to extend to him
a loan of P70,000 or P50,000.

FERNANDO, NIKKI LUZ C. 2

1C LTL (7 Feb. 2015)

The contention of the respondent that the amounts were

given to him liberally does not justify his acts. The
respondent is not only guilty, under this rule, for once, but
for many times. It is an honored rule in Legal Ethics that
Lawyers must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to
the court, to their client, and to their colleagues. This
principle includes the prompt payment of financial
obligations.
III.

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR.

Under this rule a lawyer shall not represent conflicting

interest except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts. This rule is based on
loyalty and confidentiality. A servant cannot serve two
masters at the same time. At all times, a lawyer shall serve
undivided loyalty to his client. A client discharges
confidential matters to a lawyer with the expectancy that the
lawyer will uphold and practice full responsibility on such
matters. The respondent, with no doubt, is liable for
representing conflicting interest when it admitted that it had
notarized the deed of sale, which was the very document
questioned by the complainant. Notwithstanding the validity
of the document, the respondent fully knows that the
document being questioned, was the same document he
notarized, and that he is directly involved with the
transaction. Evidently, the respondents act clouded his
loyalty to his client.
IV.

Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides

for the ground for disbarment or suspension of a member of
the bar:
xxx (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct
in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the
lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court; and (7) willful appearance as an
attorney for a party without authority. xxx

Under the abovementioned rule, the respondent is

guilty for ground (1), (2) and (5). The respondent was guilty
of these three because of his acts of gross misconduct; when
he demanded the complainant amount of money to be used
as a bribe, when he represented conflicting interest, when he
resorted to overprice the filing fee and when he borrowed
money from his client as a loan. As discussed above, CPR

FERNANDO, NIKKI LUZ C. 3

1C LTL (7 Feb. 2015)

being the heart of the oath of lawyers, respondent was in

violation of the lawyers oath.
In addition to the rules mentioned, the complainant
filed preponderant evidences, to wit: a promissory note,
which the respondent gave to the complainant for the repair
of his car, that indicates that the loan of P100,000 would be
payable in sixty (60) days,
and receipts that were duly authenticated. Further, the
authenticity of such notice and receipts were never
questioned and denied by the respondent.
As to the findings of the Court that the suspension by
the IBP-BOG is not sufficient, I concur. I find the respondent
categorically in violation of, not only the Code of Professional
Responsibility, but also, the Revised Rules of Court, which
channeled him to his disbarment.