DONA M.

VALBUENA June 7, 2021

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS Case Digest

A.C. No. 11871

POTENCIANO R. MALVAR, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. FREDDIE B. FEIR, Respondent
Ponente-Justice Peralta
ISSUE

Whether or not Attorney Freddie B. Feir should be disbarred for his alleged acts in
violation of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
his lawyer’s oath.

RULE

1. Canon 19 – a Lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law.
2. Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility – A lawyer shall
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
3. Lawyer's Oath

APPLICATION/FACTS
Mr. Potenciano Malvar alleged that on December 17, 2014 and January 22, 2015,
he received threatening letters from Attorney Feir stating that should he fail to pay
the sum of P18,000,000.00 to his client, Mr. Rogelio M. Amurao, a criminal
complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and Estafa, a civil complaint for
Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title, and an administrative complaint for the
revocation of his license as a physician would be filed against him.
In support of his complaint, Mr. Malvar submitted the affidavits executed by his
staff stating that they witnessed Mr. Amurao delivered to the office a Deed of
Absolute Sale signed by Mr. Amurao, Noemi Amurao, Teodorico Toribio, and
Fatima Toribio and Amurao himself as one of the sellers indicated in the Deed of
Absolute Sale, that the signature appearing thereon is his, and that he personally
witnessed Noemi Amurao, Teodorico Toribio, and Fatima Toribio sign said
document
Mr. Amurao later on learned that the subject properties were already transferred in
Mr. Malvar's name despite the fact that he only received the amount of
P3,200,000.00 out of the agreed total purchase price of P21,200,000.00. Mr.
Malvar only borrowed the owner’s duplicates copy of title (ODCT) to verify its
authenticity and he (Mr. Amurao) neither executed the necessary Deed of Absolute
Sale nor received the balance of the purchase price.
Mr. Malvar claimed that Attorney Feir sent him the demand letters in order to
interpose threats that should he fail to pay the sum of P18,000,000.00, Attorney
Feir will file criminal, civil, and administrative complaints which were, in truth,
unfounded for being based neither on valid nor relevant facts and law. Such
demands, according to Mr. Malvar, are tantamount to blackmail or extortion.
Attorney Feir countered that the said letters merely demanded Malvar to explain
how certain parcels of land Mr. Malvar was purchasing from his client, Mr.
Amurao, were already registered in Mr. Malvar's name when Mr. Amurao had
never executed a Deed of Absolute Sale transferring the same.
After careful review and evaluation of the complaint the Commission on Discipline
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the
case against Attorney Feir for lack of merit.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline’s recommendation through a resolution dated November 5, 2016
dismissing the complaint of Mr. Malvar against Attorney Feir for lack of merit.

CONCLUSION/RULING
The Court held that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of
his oath, his duties as an attorney and counselor which include statutory grounds
under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Court did not find merit in Mr. Malvar’s contention. It defined blackmail as:
"the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or
opposition in the public prints, x x x obtaining of value from a person as a
condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some
secret calculated to operate to his prejudice."
The Court held that the demand letters were based on a legitimate cause or issue,
which is the alleged failure of Mr. Malvar to pay the balance of the agreed total
amount related to real property sales transaction as well as the alleged falsified
Deed of Sale used to transfer ownership of subject property.
The Court held that contrary to Mr. Malvar's claims, there is nothing in the demand
letters to show that the same was maliciously made with intent to extort money
from him since it was based on a valid and justifiable cause.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law." Furthermore Rule
19.01 thereof states that "a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding."
Under this Canon, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or
baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to
secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases
against the lawyer's client.
The Court held Attorney Feir’s acts were based on justifiable grounds, and he
acted in compliance to his lawyer’s oath to protect and preserve the rights of his
client.
In the absence to prove that Attorney Feir committed acts constituting grounds for
disbarment, such as the violation of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, Mr. Malvar's claims must
necessarily fail.
The Court dismissed the disbarment case against Attorney Feir for lack of merit.
 A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 –
NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner,
versus
ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, Respondent.
Ponente-Justice Bersamin

ISSUES

1. Whether or not Attorney Romeo G. Aguilos should be held administratively

liable for misconduct; and
2. Whether or not he should be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid by his
client.
RULE
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility – A lawyer shall keep abreast
of legal developments, participate in legal education programs, support efforts to
achieve high standards in law school as well as in the practical training of law
students and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
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 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.

APPLICATION/FACTS
Nenita D. Sanchez has filed a complaint against Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos 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 sought the services of Attorney Aguilos in March 2005 for an annulment case
against her estranged husband, Jovencio C. Sanchez. She further stated their
agreement to a professional engagement fee amounting to 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.

The agreed engagement was for annulment case, but Attorney Aguilos insisted on
filing a legal separation case. From the start of their engagement, it was clear that
Ms. Sanchez wanted to remarry, hence she wanted to file an annulment case
instead of a legal separation case. It was her British fiancée who paid the
P70,000.00 down payment as evidenced by a handwritten receipt from Attorney
Aguilos.

Ms. Sanchez withdrew the professional engagement of Attorney Aguilos for her
annulment case. Through Attorney Isidro S.C. Martinez, she demanded the return
of her payment made to Attorney Aguilos less whatever amount corresponded to
the legal services he had already performed.

Attorney Aguilos did not heed her demand letter despite his not having rendered
any appreciable legal services to her; and that his constant refusal to return the
amounts prompted her to bring an administrative complaint against him with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 20, 2007.

Attorney Aguilos admits that he received the demand letter from Attorney
Martinez, but stated that he dismissed the letter as a mere scrap of paper because
the demand lacked basis in law. 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.”
IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, declared that Attorney
Aguilos’ insistence to file a legal separation case and his obvious unfamiliarity
with the grounds calls for sanction. In terms of legal services rendered,
Commissioner Dela Rama recommended that Attorney Aguilos 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 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Commissioner Dela Rama, Jr. recommended the following to the IBP Board of
Governors:
(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 degree of professional services he has
extended, the amount of P40,000.00 he received on March 10, 2005 would be
sufficient payment for the same.
(2) For failure to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation and
annulment of marriage, respondent should be sanctioned.
(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 filed right before the Commission on Bar Discipline, he must also be
sanctioned and disciplined in order to avoid repetition of the said misconduct.

The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of Investigating Commissioner

De La Rama, Jr., adopted with modification his recommendation through a
Resolution of ordering Attorney Romeo G. Aguilos to return the Thirty Thousand
(P30,000.00) Pesos to complainant within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice
and was warned for failure to show respect to his fellow lawyer and for showing
offensive and improper words in his pleadings.
Attorney Aguilos filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the IBP.

CONCLUSION/RULING

The Court held that Attorney Aguilos 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. His utter failure to distinguish
the grounds for legal separation and annulment, manifests misrepresentation of his
competence to handle such cases, hence a violation of Canon 5, Canon 18, and
Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03.

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 was 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.