ERLINDA FOSTER, Complainant, versus ATTY. JAIME V.
AGTANG, Respondent. A.C. No. 10579 EN BANC 10 December 2014 Issue of the Case Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Opinion on the Decision In view of the facts of this case, I am with the Courts decision for the disbarment of Atty. Jaime V. Agtang, respondent. I find that the respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Revised Rules of Court. I.
Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR
Under this rule, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct. The overpricing act of the respondent is customarily related to depravity and dishonesty, which falls under this rule. His defense that the complainant was the one who insisted, is untenable. It is impracticable for the complainant to propose an additional expense to further burden her financial resources just to initiate her complaint in the trial court. Similarly, supposed that the complainant is more than willing to give out an excessive amount of money, as a lawyer, the respondent should not have accepted the money in the first place, in accordance with the CPR. Further, respondent insisted and demanded for P50,000 as representation expenses allegedly for the judge handling the case, in exchange for a favorable decision. Clearly, this act of the respondent squarely falls to be a gross misconduct. II.
Rule 16.4, Canon 16 of the CPR
Under this rule, a lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client xxx neither shall a lawyer lend money to his client except, when in the interest of justice xxx. The Court is precise in saying, that when the respondent asked for a loan of P100,000 for the repair of his car, he is in violation. In addition, what aggravated the violation is that; the respondent even implored the complainant to extend to him a loan of P70,000 or P50,000.
FERNANDO, NIKKI LUZ C. 2
1C LTL (7 Feb. 2015)
The contention of the respondent that the amounts were
given to him liberally does not justify his acts. The respondent is not only guilty, under this rule, for once, but for many times. It is an honored rule in Legal Ethics that Lawyers must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to the court, to their client, and to their colleagues. This principle includes the prompt payment of financial obligations. III.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR.
Under this rule a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. This rule is based on loyalty and confidentiality. A servant cannot serve two masters at the same time. At all times, a lawyer shall serve undivided loyalty to his client. A client discharges confidential matters to a lawyer with the expectancy that the lawyer will uphold and practice full responsibility on such matters. The respondent, with no doubt, is liable for representing conflicting interest when it admitted that it had notarized the deed of sale, which was the very document questioned by the complainant. Notwithstanding the validity of the document, the respondent fully knows that the document being questioned, was the same document he notarized, and that he is directly involved with the transaction. Evidently, the respondents act clouded his loyalty to his client. IV.
Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides
for the ground for disbarment or suspension of a member of the bar: xxx (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. xxx
Under the abovementioned rule, the respondent is
guilty for ground (1), (2) and (5). The respondent was guilty of these three because of his acts of gross misconduct; when he demanded the complainant amount of money to be used as a bribe, when he represented conflicting interest, when he resorted to overprice the filing fee and when he borrowed money from his client as a loan. As discussed above, CPR
FERNANDO, NIKKI LUZ C. 3
1C LTL (7 Feb. 2015)
being the heart of the oath of lawyers, respondent was in
violation of the lawyers oath. In addition to the rules mentioned, the complainant filed preponderant evidences, to wit: a promissory note, which the respondent gave to the complainant for the repair of his car, that indicates that the loan of P100,000 would be payable in sixty (60) days, and receipts that were duly authenticated. Further, the authenticity of such notice and receipts were never questioned and denied by the respondent. As to the findings of the Court that the suspension by the IBP-BOG is not sufficient, I concur. I find the respondent categorically in violation of, not only the Code of Professional Responsibility, but also, the Revised Rules of Court, which channeled him to his disbarment.