20. Nenita Sanchez vs Atty.

Romeo Aguilos

AC # 10543, March 16, 2016

FACTS: Nenita Sanchez (petitioner) sought the legal services of Atty. Romeo Aguilos (respondent) to
represent her in the annulment case. Atty. Aguilos accepted the engagement and fixed the attorney’s fees.
Sanchez had given him an initial amount but Aguilos said he would just start working the case upon full
payment of the acceptance fee and that the amount he had given for acceptance fee was for legal separation,
he said he did not know that the complainant contemplated to file an annulment. Aguilos told her that she
have to pay a higher acceptance fee for the annulment of marriage. Because of this, complainant subsequently
withdraw the case and requested for a refund of the amounts already paid. Respondent refused to do the
same as he had already working on the case. This made her bring an administrative complaint against Atty.
Aguilos.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aguilos should be held administratively liable for misconduct.

HELD: YES. The SC fined Atty. Aguilos P10,000 and reprimanded him for his use of offensive/improper
language against his fellow lawyer.

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
advice that respondent gave to the complainant. In giving an advice, 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.

Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the complainant. As
the foregoing findings 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 fiancée. 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.