A.C. No. 10543 - NENITA D. SANCHEZ, VS. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly treated the said letter demand for refund dated 15 August 2005 (Annex "B" of the complaint) as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel ATTY. ISIDRO S.C. MARTINEZ , who unskillfully relied on an unverified information furnished him, to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose. [9] Findings and Recommendation of the IBP The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) summoned the parties to a mandatory conference on August 3, 2007, [10] but only the complainant and her counsel attended the conference. On his part, the respondent sent a letter dated July 20, 2007 to the IBP-CBD to reiterate his answer. [11] Due to his non-appearance, the IBP-CBD terminated the conference on the same day, but required the complainant to submit a verified position paper within 10 days. She did not submit the position paper in the end. In his commissioner's report dated July 25, 2008, [12] IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. declared that the respondent's insistence that he could have brought a petition for legal separation based on the psychological incapacity of the complainant's husband was sanctionable because he himself was apparently not conversant with the grounds for legal separation; that because he rendered some legal services to the complainant, he was entitled to receive only P40,000.00 out of the P70,000.00 paid to him as acceptance fee, the P40,000.00 being the value of the services rendered under the principle of quantum meruit ; and that, accordingly, he should be made to return to her the amount of P30,000.00. IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. observed that the respondent's statement in the last part of his answer, to the effect that the demand letter sent by Atty. Martinez in behalf of the complainant should be treated as a scrap of paper, or should have been addressed "to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose," was uncalled for and improper; and he opined that such offensive and improper language uttered by the respondent against a fellow lawyer violated Rule 8.01 [13] of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. ultimately recommended as follows: The undersigned Commissioner is most respectfully recommending the following: (1) To order the respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P30,000.00 which he received for the purpose of preparing a petition for legal separation. Undersigned believes that considering the degree of professional services he has extended, the amount of P40,000.00 he received on March 10, 2005 would be sufficient payment for the same. (2) For failure to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation and annulment of marriage, respondent should be sanctioned. (3) Lastly, for failure to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness towards his colleagues and for using offensive or improper language in his pleading, which was filed right before