CASE 2016-0074: SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO, V. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR., (A.C. NO. 8494, 05 OCTOBER 2016 , BERSAMIN, J.)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, this Court FINDS and HOLDS respondent ATTY. EMELIE P. BAN GOT, JR. guilty of violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility; SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for five ( 5) years effective upon notice of this decision, with warning that sterner sanctions will be meted on him for a similar offense; and DECLARES that he is not entitled to recover any attorney’s fees from the complainants.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator.
The Office of the Court Administrator shall disseminate this decision to all courts of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
“Although the complainants appeared to have initially bound themselves to give a part of their land as the respondent’s professional fees, they did so apparently because he had misrepresented to them the gravity and extent of their legal matter. His misrepresentation was undeniably calculated to make them part with their valuable asset in lieu of cash. He did not thereafter render any worthy professional legal service in their favor. Verily, as the cliche goes, they did not get their money’s worth from him. Even if this charge was his first infraction, the grossness of his violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the various relevant canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility quoted earlier absolutely warranted his suspension from the practice of law for five years effective upon his receipt of this decision, with warning of sterner sanctions should he hereafter commit a similar offense. This duration of suspension was the penalty we prescribed in the recent case of Mercullo v. Ramon24 where the respondent lawyer had deceived the complainants into parting with the substantial sum of P350,000.00 as her attorney’s fees but did not subsequently perform her professional undertaking.
In addition, the respondent should not be entitled to receive any attorney’s fees in view of the worthlessness of the professional services he supposedly rendered. There is no question, as ruled in Sanchez v. Aguilos,25 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; and that for 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. Yet, equally without question is that the attorney should not accept the engagement that is way above his ability and competence to handle, for there will then be no basis for him to accept any amount as attorney’s fees; or that he should at least begin to perform the contemplated task undertaken for the client to entitle him to be compensated on the basis of quantum meruit.26””
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
scd-2016-0074-spouses-emilio-and-alicia-jacinto
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 