Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SANCHEZ v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, A.C. No. 10543 (16 March 2016)
SANCHEZ v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, A.C. No. 10543 (16 March 2016)
FACTS: Sanchez has charged Atty. Aguilos with misconduct for the latter’s refusal to return the amount
of Php 70,000, which she had paid for his professional services despite not having performed the
contemplated professional services. Sanchez avers that she sought the legal services of the respondent
to represent her in the annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband. However, she
subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund of the amount paid. Atty. Aguilos
refuses to do so as he has already started working on the case. A letter was sent through Atty. Martinez
to demand the return of payment less the amount corresponded to the legal services performed. Atty.
Aguilos did not heed to the demand letter. Thus, Sanchez brought an administrative complaint for his
constant refusal to return the amount paid. IBP 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 not conversant with the grounds for legal separation;
also, recommended that Atty. Aguilos be suspended for 6 months.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct
RULING: YES. SC fines Php 10,000 for misrepresenting his professional competence, reprimands him
for use of offensive language towards his fellow attorney, and orders to return the Php 70,000 within 30
days from notice.
RATIO: Atty. Aguilos misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the complainant. 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
of either causes of action. As such, he failed to live up to the standards of attorneys. Canon 18 (Rule
18.01-18.03) was violated. Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence