Sps. Emilio and Alicia Jacinto Vs. Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr.
A.C. No. 8494. October 5, 2016

The spouses averred that a private survey team had conducted a survey and tried to enter the premises the spouses owned. They consulted ATTY. BANGOT, JR. on the legal remedies to prevent the intrusion on their property.

Atty. Bangot, Jr. told them that he would initiate a case for certiorari in exchange of one of their lots. It appears that soon after the respondent unilaterally prepared the document so-called Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), to wit:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR., of legal age, married and a resident of Lot 13, Block 1, Xavier Heights Subd., Upper Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City, hereinafter referred as the FIRST PARTY; and

WE, SPOUSES EMILIO JACINTO AND ALICIA JACINTO, both legal age, and residents of Cagayan de Oro City, herein referred as the SECOND PARTY;

WITNESSETH:

1.    That the FIRST PARTY shall be the counsel/lawyer of the SECOND PARTY, regarding their parcel of land formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-3387 with an area of 4,138 sq. m., located at Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City, presently subdivided into 8 lots with individual certificate of titles (sic);

2.    That the First Party shall get 300 sq. m., from Lot No. 37925-G covered by TCT No. 121708

3.    That this agreement shall take effect immediately upon the signing of the parties (sic) cannot be revoked, amended or modified by the Second Party without the consent of the First Party.


Atty. Bangot, Jr. refused to revoke the MOA and refused to agree on the spouses’ pleading for payment of cash alleging that he already filed a Manifestation in court and claimed that our possession would not be disturbed and that he will be filing a case for Certiorari as promised.

In addition, the Manifestation filed by Atty. Bangot is not a preparatory pleading for certiorari, which could not stop the intrusion into the spouses’ property.


1.    Is the MOA falls under a contingent fee arrangement?


No.

A contingent fee arrangement is a contract in writing in which the fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend a supposed right.

However, the express terms of the MOA stipulated that “this agreement shall take effect immediately upon the signing of the parties [and] cannot be revoked, amended or modified by the Second Party without the consent of the First Party.”

As worded, the agreement was not a contingent fee arrangement.


2.    Enumerate the factors that may serve as guide to determine the reasonableness of attorney’s fees:

·         To determine the reasonableness of attorney’s fees, the following factors as enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility may serve as a guide, to wit:
·          
·         the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
·         the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
·         the importance of the subject matter;
·         the skill demanded;
·         the probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
·         the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
·         the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;
·         the contingency or certainty of compensation;
·         the character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
·         the professional standing of the lawyer.


3.    Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his dealings with the complainants?


Yes.

ATTY. BANGOT, JR. breached the following canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:

·         Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
·         Canon 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
·         Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
·         Canon 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
·         Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
·         Rule 20.4. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.

He certainly transgressed the Lawyer’s Oath by receiving property of a substantial value from the complainants after having made them believe that he could ensure their land from intrusion by third parties. He was definitely bent on obtaining Lot No. 37925-G than in protecting the complainants’ interest in their property. He exhibited this zeal by refusing their offer to give cash for his attorney’s fees instead of the land. We sadly note in this connection that his changing the property ostensibly agreed upon with the bigger lot as payment for his legal services14 reflected his deceit at the start of the relationship. He maintained the deceit by ultimately enforcing the MOA against them through the action for specific performance.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Image
G.R. No. 214294 I What is the quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases? The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." II Are affidavits sufficient to establish substantial evidence in labor cases? Explain.  Yes, in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings. III What is the weight of an affidavit of witness in labor case? A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, ...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more