G.R. No. A.C. No. 10579. December 10, 2014.
ERLINDA FOSTER, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Erlinda Foster engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Jaime V. Agtang regarding a deed of absolute sale he had notarized. She paid him an acceptance fee and incidental expenses. Respondent later requested and received a loan of ₱100,000.00 from complainant, evidenced by a promissory note. For the filing of a recommended case, respondent requested and received ₱150,000.00 for filing fees, but the actual fees paid to the court were only ₱22,410.00. Complainant discovered respondent had previously notarized documents for the opposing party, Tierra Realty. Respondent requested additional loans from complainant, including ₱22,000.00 and, later, ₱50,000.00 which he claimed was to be given to the judge for a favorable ruling; complainant gave ₱25,000.00 initially and another ₱25,000.00 later, with a receipt indicating the balance was for after a favorable judgment. Complainant’s case was dismissed without her being notified by respondent. Upon terminating his services, complainant demanded repayment of the amounts received less the contract fee and actual filing fees, but respondent did not reply. Complainant filed a disbarment complaint. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension and ordered respondent to repay specific amounts. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jaime V. Agtang should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court DISBARRED respondent Atty. Jaime V. Agtang from the practice of law. The Court found him guilty of gross misconduct. He violated Canon 1 (upholding the Constitution and the law) and Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) by soliciting money from his client under false pretenses, including misrepresenting the required filing fees and soliciting money purportedly for a judge. He violated Canon 16 (holding client funds in trust) and Rule 16.01 (accounting for client money) by failing to account for and return the excess filing fees. He violated the lawyer’s duty of candor and fairness to the court. His actions constituted gross dishonesty and betrayal of client trust, warranting disbarment. The Court also ordered him to pay complainant the amounts of ₱127,590.00 (balance of filing fees), ₱50,000.00 (money solicited for the judge), and ₱2,500.00 (for a bottle of wine). The penalty was increased from the IBP’s recommended suspension to disbarment due to the gravity of the offenses.