FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10543. March 16, 2016.]

NENITA D. SANCHEZ , petitioner, vs. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS ,

respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , J : p

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 suf cient 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?
Antecedents
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, Jovencio C. Sanchez; that the respondent accepted the
engagement, xing his fee at P150,000.00, plus the appearance fee of
P5,000.00/hearing; that she then gave to him the initial amount of P90,000.00; 1 that
she had gone to his residence in May 2005 to inquire on the developments in her case,
but he told her that he would only start working on the case upon her full payment of
the acceptance fee; that she had only learned then that what he had contemplated to
le for her was a petition for legal separation, not one for the annulment of her
marriage; that he further told her that she would have to pay a higher acceptance fee for
the annulment of her marriage; 2 that 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; 3 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; 4 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 him 6 in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) on March 20, 2007.
In his answer dated May 21, 2007, 7 the respondent alleges that the complainant
and her British ancée sought his legal services to bring the petition for the annulment
of her marriage; that based on his evaluation of her situation, the more appropriate
case would be one for legal separation anchored on the psychological incapacity of her
husband; that she and her British ancée agreed on P150,000.00 for his legal services
to bring the action for legal separation, with the ancée paying him P70,000.00, as
evidenced by his handwritten receipt; 8 that for purposes of the petition for legal
separation he required the complainant to submit copies of her marriage contract and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the birth certi cates of her children with her husband, as well as for her to submit to
further interviews by him to establish the grounds for legal separation; that he later on
communicated with her and her ancée upon nalizing the petition, but they did not
promptly respond to his communications; that in May 2005, she admitted to him that
she had spent the money that her ancée had given to pay the balance of his
professional fees; and that in June 2005, she returned to him with a note at the back of
the prepared petition for legal separation essentially requesting him not to le the
petition because she had meanwhile opted to bring the action for the annulment of her
marriage instead.
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 ,
wh o unskillfully relied on an unverified information furnished him, to the
urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose. 9 cSEDTC

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) summoned the parties to a
mandatory conference on August 3, 2007, 10 but only the complainant and her counsel
attended the conference. On his part, the respondent sent a letter dated July 20, 2007
to the IBP-CBD to reiterate his answer. 11 Due to his non-appearance, the IBP-CBD
terminated the conference on the same day, but required the complainant to submit a
verified position paper within 10 days. She did not submit the position paper in the end.
In his commissioner's report dated July 25, 2008, 12 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 Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. observed that the respondent's
statement in the last part of his answer, to the effect that the demand letter sent by
Atty. Martinez in behalf of the complainant should be treated as a scrap of paper, or
should have been addressed "to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its
rightful purpose," was uncalled for and improper; and he opined that such offensive and
improper language uttered by the respondent against a fellow lawyer violated Rule 8.01
13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. ultimately recommended as

follows:
The undersigned Commissioner is most respectfully recommending the
following:
(1) To order the respondent to return to the complainant the amount of
P30,000.00 which he received for the purpose of preparing a petition
for legal separation. Undersigned believes that considering the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 degree of professional services he has extended, the amount of
P40,000.00 he received on March 10, 2005 would be suf cient
payment for the same.
(2) For failure to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation
and annulment of marriage, respondent should be sanctioned. AIDSTE

(3) Lastly, for failure to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness

towards his colleagues and for using offensive or improper
language in his pleading, which was led right before the
Commission on Bar Discipline, he must also be sanctioned and
disciplined in order to avoid repetition of the said misconduct.
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully
recommended that Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos be ordered to return to complainant
Nenita D. Sanchez the amount of P30,000.00 which the former received as
payment for his services because it is excessive.
It is also recommended that the Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for failure to show his
respect to his fellow lawyer and for using offensive and improper language in
his pleadings.
Through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated September 20, 2008, 14 the IBP
Board of Governors af rmed the ndings of Investigating Commissioner De La Rama,
Jr., but modified the recommendation of the penalty, viz.:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED
AND APPROVED, with modi cation , the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A", and, nding the recommendation fully supported by
the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
respondent's failure to show respect to his fellow lawyer and for showing
offensive and improper words in his pleadings, Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos, is
hereby WARNED and Ordered to Return the Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00)
Pesos to complainant within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice. 15
The respondent led a motion for reconsideration, 16 which the IBP Board of
Governors denied through Resolution No. XXI-2014-177 dated March 23, 2014. 17
Issues
The two issues for consideration and resolution are: (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 of the Court
We adopt and af rm Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 and Resolution No. XXI-
2014-177, but modify the recommended penalty.
1.
Respondent was liable for misconduct,
and he should be ordered to return
the entire amount received from the client
The respondent offered himself to the complainant as a lawyer who had the
requisite professional competence and skill to handle the action for the annulment of
marriage for her. He required her to pay P150,000.00 as attorney's fees, exclusive of
the ling fees and his appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing. Of that amount, he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 received the sum of P70,000.00.
On the respondent's conduct of himself in his professional relationship with the
complainant as his client, we reiterate and adopt the thorough analysis and ndings by
IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. to be very apt and cogent, viz.:
As appearing in Annex "4", which is the handwritten retainer's contract
between the respondent and the complainant, there is a sweeping evidence that
there is an attorney-client relationship. The respondent agreed to accept the
case in the amount of P150,000.00. The acceptance fee was agreed upon to be
paid on installment basis. Excluded in the agreement is the payment of
appearance fee, filing fee and other legal documentation.
That next question is — for what case the P150,000.00 was intended for?
Was it intended for the filing of the annulment case or legal separation?
In the veri ed Answer led by the respondent, even the latter is quite
confused as to what action he is going to le in court. The intention of the
British national and the complainant was to get married. At that time and
maybe up to now, the complainant is still legally married to a certain Jovencio
C. Sanchez. That considering that the two are intending to get married, we can
safely assume that the complainant was contemplating of ling a petition for
annulment of marriage in order to free her from the marriage bond with her
husband. It is only then, granting that the petition will be granted, that the
complainant will be free to marry the British subject. The legal separation is but
a separation of husband and wife from board and bed and the marriage bond
still exists. Granting that the petition for legal separation will be granted, one is
not free to marry another person.
A reading of the answer led by the respondent would show that he
himself is not well versed in the grounds for legal separation. He stated the
following;
. . . respondent suggested to them to le instead a legal
separation case for the alleged psychological incapacity of her
husband to comply with his marital obligations developed or of
their marriage on February 6, 1999. (please see par. 2 of the
Answer).
If the intention was to le a petition for legal separation, under A.M. 02-
11-11-SC, the grounds are as follows:
Sec. 2. Petition. —
(a) Who may and when to le — (1) A petition for legal
separation may be led only by the husband or the wife, as the
case may be, within ve years from the time of the occurrence of
any of the following causes:
(a) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive
conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child
of the petitioner;
(b) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the
petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
(c) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in
prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement; AaCTcI

(d) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;
(e) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the
respondent;
(f) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent:
(g) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent
bigamous marriage, whether in or outside the Philippines;
(h) Sexual infidelity or perversion of the respondent;
(i) Attempt on the life of petitioner by the respondent; or
(j) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without
justifiable cause for more than one year.
Psychological incapacity, contrary to what respondent explained to the
complainant, is not one of those mentioned in any of the grounds for legal
separation.
Even in Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, psychological
incapacity is never a ground for the purpose of ling a petition for legal
separation.
On the other hand, psychological incapacity has always been used for
the purpose of ling a petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of
marriage.
That as provided for by Article 36 of the New Family Code, it states that
"a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
only after its solemnization."
That lawyers shall keep abreast of the legal developments and
participate in continuing legal education program (Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility) in order to prevent repetition of such kind of advise
that respondent gave to the complainant. In giving an advise, he should be able
to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation and grounds for
annulment of marriage. But as the respondent stated in his answer, it appears
that he is mixed up with the basic provisions of the law. 18
Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to
the complainant. As the foregoing ndings 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 ancée. 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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 service which
he knows or should know that he is not quali ed 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)
The next to be dealt with is the matter of the attorney's fees. We can easily agree
that every attorney is entitled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation
for services performed at the special instance and request of his client. As long as the
attorney is in good faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the
client, he should have a reasonable compensation for such services. 19
The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between
the client and the attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long as
it is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order. 20
The underlying theory is that the retainer's agreement between them gives to the client
the reasonable notice of the arrangement on the fees. Once the attorney has performed
the task assigned to him in a valid agreement, his compensation is determined on the
basis of what he and the client agreed. 21 In the absence of the written agreement, the
lawyer's compensation shall be based on quantum meruit, which means "as much as he
deserved." 22 The determination of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is
also authorized "when the counsel, for justi able cause, was not able to nish the case
to its conclusion." 23 Moreover, quantum meruit becomes the basis of recovery of
compensation by the attorney where the circumstances of the engagement indicate
that it will be contrary to the parties' expectation to deprive the attorney of all
compensation.
Nevertheless, the court shall determine in every case what is reasonable
compensation based on the obtaining circumstances, 24 provided that the attorney
does not receive more than what is reasonable, in keeping with Section 24 of Rule 138
of the Rules of Court, to wit: EcTCAD

Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An

attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a
reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the
subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of
attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard
such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A
written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless
found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
The court's supervision of the lawyer's compensation for legal services rendered is not
only for the purpose of ensuring the reasonableness of the amount of attorney's fees
charged, but also for the purpose of preserving the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession. 25
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The respondent should not have accepted the engagement because as it was
later revealed, it was way above his ability and competence to handle the case for
annulment of marriage. As a consequence, he had no basis to accept any amount as
attorney's fees from the complainant. He did not even begin to perform the
contemplated task he undertook for the complainant because it was improbable that
the agreement with her was to bring the action for legal separation. His having
supposedly prepared the petition for legal separation instead of the petition for
annulment of marriage was either his way of covering up for his incompetence, or his
means of charging her more. Either way did not entitle him to retain the amount he had
already received. SDHTEC

The written receipt dated March 10, 2005 shows that the respondent received
P70,000.00 as acceptance fee. His refusal to return the amount to the complainant
rested on his claim of having already completed the rst phase of the preparation of
the petition for legal separation after having held conferences with the complainant and
her British ancée. In this respect, IBP Investigating Commission De la Rama, Jr. opined
that the respondent could retain P40,000.00 of the P70,000.00 because the
respondent had rendered some legal services to the complainant, speci cally: (a)
having the complainant undergo further interviews towards establishing the ground for
legal separation; (b) reducing into writing the grounds discussed during the interviews
based on her statement in her own dialect (Annexes 1 and 2) after he could not
understand the written statement prepared for the purpose by her British ancée; (c)
requiring her to submit her marriage contract with her husband Jovencio C. Sanchez
(Annex 3), and the certi cates of live birth of her four children: Mary Joy, Timothy,
Christine, and Janette Anne, all surnamed Sanchez (Annexes 4, 5, 6 and 7); and (d)
finalizing her petition for legal separation (Annex 8) in the later part of April, 2007.
The opinion of IBP Investigating Commission De la Rama, Jr. in favor of the
respondent was too generous. We cannot see how the respondent deserved any
compensation because he did not really begin to perform the contemplated tasks if,
even based on his version, he would prepare the petition for legal separation instead of
the petition for annulment of marriage. The attorney who fails to accomplish the tasks
he should naturally and expectedly perform during his professional engagement does
not discharge his professional responsibility and ethical duty toward his client. The
respondent was thus guilty of misconduct, and may be sanctioned according to the
degree of the misconduct. As a consequence, he may be ordered to restitute to the
client the amount received from the latter in consideration of the professional
engagement, subject to the rule on quantum meruit, if warranted.
Accordingly, the respondent shall be ned in the amount of P10,000.00 for his
misrepresentation of his professional competence, and he is further to be ordered to
return the entire amount of P70,000.00 received from the client, plus legal interest of
6% per annum reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.
2.
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, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged."
26 This duty of lawyers is further emphasized in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, whose Canon 8 provides: "A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel." Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 speci cally 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 which has
necessitated lawyers to use strong language in the advancement of the interest of their
clients. 27 However, as members of a noble profession, lawyers are always impressed
with 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. In maintaining the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer's language — spoken or in his pleadings — must be digni ed. 28 As
such, every lawyer is mandated to carry out his duty as an agent in the administration of
justice with courtesy, dignity and respect not only towards his clients, the court and
judicial officers, but equally towards his colleagues in the Legal Profession. AScHCD

The respondent's statement in his answer that the demand from Atty. Martinez
should be treated "as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her
counsel . . . to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may service its rightful purpose"
constituted simple misconduct that this Court cannot tolerate.
In his motion for reconsideration, the 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 suf cient 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.
As penalty for this particular misconduct, he is reprimanded, with the stern
warning that a repetition of the offense will be severely punished.
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
t h e 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.
Let copies of this decision be attached to the personal records of Atty. Romeo G.
Aguilos as a member of the Philippine Bar, and be furnished to the Of ce of the Bar
Con dant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Of ce of the Court
Administrator for proper dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-3.

2. Id.
3. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Id. at 6.
5. Id. at 3.
6. Id. at 2-4.

7. Id. at 17-20.
8. Id. at 11.
9. Id. at 20.
10. Id. at 49.
11. Id. at 15.

12. Id. at 56-69.

13. Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
14. Rollo, p. 55.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 70-74.
17. Id. at 80.

18. Id. at 85-88.

19. Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC , G.R. No. 120592, March 14,
1997, 269 SCRA 733, 743; De Guzman v. Visayan Rapit Transit Co., Inc. , 68 Phil. 643
(1939).

20. Reparations Commission vs. Visayan Packing Corporation, G.R. No. 30712, February 6,
1991, 193 SCRA 531, 540.
21. Francisco v. Matias, L-16349, January 1, 1964, 10 SCRA 89, 95.

22. Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc. , G.R.
No. 104600, July 2, 1999, 309 SCRA 566, 575.

23. Id.
24. Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Of ces , G.R. No. 160334, September 11,
2006, 501 SCRA 419, 426-427.
25. Id. at 433-434.
26. Rule 138, Sec. 20 (f) of the Rules of Court.
27. Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 359, 368.
28. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com