Facts:
In March 2005, Nenita D. Sanchez engaged the legal services of Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to annul her marriage with Jovencio C. Sanchez. Aguilos agreed on a fee of P150,000, with P5,000 per hearing as appearance fees. Sanchez initially paid P90,000. When Sanchez visited Aguilos in May 2005 for case updates, Aguilos demanded the full acceptance fee before starting the case. During this visit, Sanchez learned that Aguilos intended to file for legal separation, not annulment. Sanchez requested a refund of her P70,000 due to Aguilos’ non-performance and his refusal led to a complaint filed at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in March 2007. Aguilos maintained his stance, claiming he was working towards legal separation, a separate understanding agreed upon by Sanchez and her British fiancé. Aguilos contested the refund demand, finding it baseless and treating communications dismissively. The IBP summoned the parties but Aguilos was absent, leading to further proceedings.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Aguilos liable for negligence, recommending Aguilos return P30,000 to Sanchez, since only P40,000 was justified for slight services rendered. The IBP’s Board of Governors largely adopted these findings, adjusting the remedy to also warn Aguilos against disrespectful language towards fellow lawyer Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, an instance to be sanctioned.
Issues:
1. Was Aguilos administratively liable for misconduct?
2. Should Aguilos return the attorney’s fees he received from Sanchez?
Court’s Decision:
1. The Supreme Court held Aguilos liable for misconduct. Aguilos misrepresented his competence by failing to understand fundamental differences between legal separation and annulment grounds under Article 36 of the Family Code and psychological incapacity references, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court determined his professional engagement with Sanchez lacked merit, warranting the refund of her entire payment of P70,000 plus pertinent interest for not delivering agreed legal services, overruling the IBP’s tempered refund estimation.
2. For discourteous language addressed to Atty. Martinez, Aguilos was reprimanded and stricken with a stern warning against future transgressions of similar nature.
Doctrine:
The case underscores the principle that attorneys must not undertake services surpassing their competence (Canon 18). Claims of legal service must be legitimate and documented without abuses in billing (quantum meruit as basis if incomplete). Courteous conduct towards peers remains necessary (Rule 8.01).
Class Notes:
– **Essentials of Legal Separation vs. Annulment:** Psychological incapacity is specific to annulment, not legal separation (Article 36, Family Code).
– **Attorney’s Fees:** Determined by contract unless unconscionable; quantum meruit applies if engagement isn’t completed.
– **Professional Conduct:** Competence and courtesy demanded by Canon 18 and Rule 8.01. Misrepresentation and offensive language subject attorneys to reprimand and financial penalty.
Historical Background:
This case emerged amidst ongoing debates on the clarity of grounds for marriage nullification in Philippine law. The decision reiterates the critical distinction between legal separation and the annulment process, reflective of then-current family law reforms emphasizing marriage sanctity and preservation unless irrefutably void. The decision is part of sentinel jurisprudence ensuring robust standards in legal service and ethics.
Leave a Reply