17 Sanchez v Aguilos Digest

Title: Sanchez v Aguilos Reference No.: AC No. 10543 Keywords: FACTS: Nenita Sanchez charged respondent Atty Aguilos with misconduct Refusal to return he amount of Php 70,000 she paid o for his services; he did not perform he contemplated service Sanchez sought the services of Aguilos for her annulment with her estranged husband Jovencio Sanchez  Aguilos accepted; fixe d his fee at Php 150,0 0; o appearance fee of Php 5,000/ hearing Gave the initial amount of Php 90,000 o She went to Aguilos’ residence to follow up on her case  Aguilos responde d that he would o nly start working o upon full payment of the acceptance fee What was intended to be filed was only a legal o separation separation case Higher acceptance fee for annulment She withdrew her case with him; Atty Martinez o demanded the return of her payment less whatever amount corresponded to the services he performed To no avail  Aguilos said that the demand letter lac ked basis in law “Mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed o by her counsel Atty Isidro Martinez, who unskillfully relied on an unverified information furnished him, to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose”  An evaluation of the ca se was done by hi m and he o found legal separation more proper 











IBP Findings and Recommendation IBP Commission on Bar Discipline summoned parties to a mandatory conference Only complainant and her counsel attended; o respondent only sent a letter to reiterate his answer Conference terminated the same day; verified position o paper required by the Commission not submitted by complainant Respondent’s insistence on legal separation was sanctionable because he himself was apparently not conversant with the grounds for legal separation He only was entitled to Php 40,000 out of the Php 70,000 paid to him as acceptance fee Value of the services he rendered under the principle o of quantum meruit Return Php 30,000 o Respondent’s statement in the last part of his paper was uncalled for and improper Offensive and improper language uttered by the o respondent against a fellow lawyer (Rule 8.01 of the CPR) Suspension from the practice of law for a period of 6 months IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings o ISSUE: W/N respondent should be held liable for misconduct 









W/N Quantum Meruit attaches when an attorney fails to accomplish tasks which he is naturally expected to perform during his professional engagement?

HELD: Misconduct Respondent agreed to accept the case in the amount of Php 150,000  Appearance fee, filing fee and other leg al o documentation excluded from the agreement For what case was the Php150,000 for? o He himself was confused as to what action he was going to file in court Complainant and her british Fiance wanted to get o married; obviously it had to be for annulment 



o