Canon 17 & 18, CPR (Fidelity, Competence, and Diligence) - 05
Basil Maguigad
SANCHEZ vs. ATTY. AGUILOS
A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 |Bersamin, J.,
This administrative case relates to the performance of duty of
an attorney towards his client in which the former is found
and declared to be lacking in knowledge and skill sufficient
for the engagement. Does quantum meruit attach when an
attorney fails to accomplish tasks which he is naturally
expected to perform during his professional engagement?
FACTS
Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent
Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos (respondent) with misconduct
for the latter's refusal to return the amount of P70,000.00
she had paid for his professional services despite his
not having performed the contemplated professional
services.
 She avers that in March 2005, she sought the legal
services of the respondent to represent her in the
annulment of her marriage with her estranged
husband.
 She subsequently withdrew the case from him, and
requested the refund of the amounts already paid,
but he refused to do the same as he had already
started working on the case; that she had sent him a
letter, through Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand
the return of her payment less whatever amount
corresponded to the legal services he had already
performed
 That the respondent did not heed her demand letter
despite his not having rendered any appreciable
legal services to her;5 and that his constant refusal to
return the amounts prompted her to bring an
administrative complaint against him6 in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 20,
2007.
IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr.
declared that the respondent's insistence that he could
have brought a petition for legal separation based on the
psychological incapacity of the complainant's husband
was sanctionable because he himself was apparently not
conversant with the grounds for legal separation; that
because he rendered some legal services to the
complainant, he was entitled to receive only P40,000.00
out of the P70,000.00 paid to him as acceptance fee, the
P40,000.00 being the value of the services rendered
under the principle of quantum meruit; and that,
accordingly, he should be made to return to her the
amount of P30,000.00.
IBP also recommended that Atty. Aguilos be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of six months.
ISSUE(S)
(a) Whether or not the respondent should be held
administratively liable for misconduct; and (b) Whether
or not he should be ordered to return the attorney's fees
paid.
RULING
Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be
ordered to return the entire amount received from the
client
Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional
competence and skill to the complainant. As the
foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction
between the grounds for legal separation and for
annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have
been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a
professional engagement for either causes of action. His
explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the
action for legal separation should be disbelieved. The case
unquestionably contemplated by the parties and for which his
services was engaged, was no other than an action for
annulment of the complainant's marriage with her husband
with the intention of marrying her British fiancee. They did not
contemplate legal separation at all, for legal separation would
still render her incapacitated to re-marry. That the respondent
was insisting in his answer that he had prepared a petition for
legal separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney's
fees if she desired to have the action for annulment was,
therefore, beyond comprehension other than to serve as a
hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered.
As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards
imposed on him as an attorney. He thus transgressed Canon
18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal serviee
which he knows or should know that he is not qualified
to render. However, he may render such service if, with the
consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a
lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable. (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution No. XVIII-
2008-476 dated September 20, 2008 of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Board of Governors, with
the MODIFICATION that Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is
hereby FINED P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his
professional competence to the client,
and REPRIMANDS him for his use of offensive and improper
language towards his fellow attorney, with the stern warning
that a repetition of the offense shall be severely punished.
The Court ORDERS Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to RETURN to
the complainant within thirty (30) days from notice the sum of
P70,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned
from the date of this decision until full payment.