Sanchez v. Aguilos

Sanchez v.
Aguilos
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.
The respondent admits that he received the demand letter from Atty. Martinez, but states
that he dismissed the letter as a mere scrap of paper because the demand lacked basis in
law. It is noted that he wrote in the last part of his answer dated May 21, 2007 in relation
to the demand letter the following:
Hence, respondent accordingly treated the said letter demand for refund dated 15 August
2005 (Annex "B" of the complaint) as a mere scrap of paper or should have been
addressed by her counsel ATTY. ISIDRO S.C. MARTINEZ, who unskillfully relied on
an unverified information furnished him, to the urinal project of the MMDA where it
may serve its rightful purpose.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Aguilos violated Rule 8.01
Held: Yes
Respondent did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleague
The Rules of Court mandates members of the Philippine Bar to "abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness,
26
unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged." This duty of lawyers is
further emphasized in the Code of Professional Responsibility, whose Canon 8 provides: "A
lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel." Rule 8.01 of Canon 8
specifically demands that: "A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper."
The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our legal system
However, lawyers have the duty to represent their clients' cause, or, as in this case, to represent a
personal matter in court, with courage and zeal but that should not be used as license for the use
of offensive and abusive language, either spoken or written.
There should be courtesy, dignity and respect not only towards his clients, the court and judicial
officers, but equally towards his colleagues in the Legal Profession.
respondent tried to justify the offensive and improper language by asserting that the phraseology
was not per se uncalled for and improper. He explained that he had sufficient cause for
maintaining that the demand letter should be treated as a mere scrap of paper and should be
disregarded. However, his assertion does not excuse the offensiveness and impropriety of his
language. He could have easily been respectful and proper in responding to the letter.
Reprimanded.

Sanchez v. Aguilos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sanchez v. Aguilos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sanchez v.

Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Aguilos violated Rule 8.01

The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our legal system

You might also like