In Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto vs. Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr., the Supreme Court held that lawyers must observe candor, honesty, and fairness in dealing with clients, and should only charge fair and reasonable fees for legal services. Atty. Bangot was found to have breached his ethical duties by taking advantage of his elderly clients, misrepresenting the value of his services, and enforcing an unfair agreement. The Court emphasized that the legal profession is a public service, and lawyers must maintain fidelity to their clients’ cause, avoiding self-gain that compromises their duties.

Exploitation or Service? The High Cost of a Lawyer’s Broken Trust

This administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto against their lawyer, Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr., for what they perceived as unjust and dishonest treatment. The Jacintos, seeking to prevent intrusion on their property, consulted Atty. Bangot. They alleged that he misled them into signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that disproportionately favored him. The core of the dispute centered on the fairness and reasonableness of the attorney’s fees charged by Atty. Bangot, particularly whether he breached his ethical duties to his clients.

The complainants claimed that Atty. Bangot initially suggested that one of their lots would serve as his attorney’s fees. While they initially hesitated, they eventually agreed to give him a portion of Lot No. 37926-H, measuring 250 square meters. However, according to the spouses, the respondent unilaterally prepared a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which significantly altered the terms they had discussed:

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.

According to the spouses, this MOA was not in line with their initial discussions. They claimed the lot area was increased from 250 to 300 square meters, and the specific lot designated was different from what they had agreed upon. Feeling deceived, the complainants sought to revoke the MOA, but Atty. Bangot refused, leading them to file the administrative complaint.

Atty. Bangot, on the other hand, maintained that the MOA was valid and that he had acted in good faith. He argued that the complaint was a harassment tactic. Further, he claimed that the Manifestation for Information he filed in court prevented the intrusion into the complainants’ land. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Bangot culpable of violating his ethical duties. The IBP initially recommended a one-year suspension, which was later increased to two years by the IBP Board of Governors.

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that Atty. Bangot failed to observe candor and fairness in his dealings with his clients. The Court highlighted that the attorney’s fees, in the form of Lot No. 37925-G, were unconscionable and unreasonable, especially considering the minimal effort exerted by Atty. Bangot. The Court referenced Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides guidelines for determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees:

The following factors may serve as a guide in determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees: (a) the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required; (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (c) the importance of the subject matter; (d) the skill demanded; (e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case; (f) the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; (g) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service; (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation; (i) the character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and j) the professional standing of the lawyer.

Applying these guidelines, the Court found that Atty. Bangot’s actions were disproportionate to the services rendered. The two-paged Manifestation for Information was insufficient to justify the substantial value of the land he sought as payment. Furthermore, the Court noted that Atty. Bangot misrepresented the nature of the agreement to the complainants, leading them to believe it was a contingent fee arrangement when the MOA stipulated that it took effect immediately.

The Supreme Court also addressed the nature of contingent fee arrangements, defining them as contracts where the fee depends on the success of the litigation. While such arrangements are generally valid, their terms must be reasonable and subject to court supervision. The Court stated that Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics underscores that contingent fees should be reasonable considering the risk and uncertainty of compensation, always subject to court oversight.

In light of Atty. Bangot’s deceitful and dishonest conduct, the Court concluded that he violated his Lawyer’s Oath and various canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The relevant canons violated include:

• 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 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.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal profession is a public service. Lawyers must uphold its tenets and principles, prioritizing justice for those who seek its aid. Atty. Bangot’s behavior demonstrated a preference for self-gain, betraying the trust reposed in him by his clients. His actions warranted suspension from the practice of law.

The Court also condemned Atty. Bangot’s unsubstantiated allegations against opposing counsel and the IBP, considering them malicious and unfounded. Such conduct demonstrated a lack of professionalism and a propensity to disparage others, further aggravating his ethical violations.

Considering the gravity of Atty. Bangot’s transgressions, the Supreme Court imposed a five-year suspension from the practice of law, aligning with precedents involving similar ethical breaches. The Court referenced cases such as Santeco v. Avance, Lemoine v. Balon, Jr., and Overgaard v. Valdez, where attorneys faced suspension or disbarment for abandoning clients, misappropriating funds, or engaging in deceitful conduct. Furthermore, the Court declared that Atty. Bangot was not entitled to recover any attorney’s fees, citing the principle that lawyers should only receive just and reasonable compensation for services rendered in good faith. Here’s a comparison of the mentioned cases:

Case	Violation	Penalty
Santeco v. Avance	Abandoning client, failing to account for funds, refusing to cooperate with IBP	Five-year suspension
Lemoine v. Balon, Jr.	Misappropriating funds, deceitful dealings with client	Disbarment
Overgaard v. Valdez	Assuring client of safeguarding property, collecting fees then deserting client	Disbarment
Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto vs. Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr.	Charging unconscionable fees, misrepresenting agreement, violating ethical duties	Five-year suspension

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Bangot violated his ethical duties as a lawyer by charging unconscionable attorney’s fees and engaging in deceitful conduct toward his clients, the Spouses Jacinto. The Supreme Court examined whether the fees charged were fair and reasonable, considering the services rendered and the circumstances of the case.
What did Atty. Bangot do that was considered unethical?	Atty. Bangot misrepresented the terms of the attorney’s fees agreement, initially suggesting a smaller lot but later drafting a MOA that designated a more valuable property. He also charged excessive fees for minimal legal work and refused to return the property or offer a reasonable cash alternative.
What is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in this context?	In this case, the MOA was a written contract outlining the terms of Atty. Bangot’s legal representation and the payment of his fees, specifically designating a portion of the Spouses Jacinto’s land as payment for his services. The dispute arose because the terms of the MOA differed from what the Spouses Jacinto claimed they had initially agreed to.
What are contingent fees, and how do they relate to this case?	Contingent fees are arrangements where a lawyer’s fee is dependent on the success of the case, typically a percentage of the recovery. The Supreme Court noted that Atty. Bangot misrepresented the agreement as a contingent fee arrangement, which influenced their decision.
What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in this case?	The Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility set the ethical standards for lawyers. Atty. Bangot was found to have violated these standards by engaging in dishonest conduct, failing to observe candor and fairness, and neglecting his duties to his clients.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Bangot?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Bangot from the practice of law for five years, effective upon notice of the decision. Additionally, he was declared not entitled to recover any attorney’s fees from the complainants.
Why did the Court focus on the age and vulnerability of the Spouses Jacinto?	The Court considered the Spouses Jacinto’s age (81 and 76 years old) as a factor indicating their vulnerability and the potential for Atty. Bangot to take advantage of their trust and confidence. This underscored the importance of lawyers acting with utmost good faith when dealing with elderly clients.
What are the key takeaways for lawyers from this decision?	Lawyers must uphold the highest ethical standards, be candid and fair in dealings with clients, charge reasonable fees, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Taking advantage of clients, especially vulnerable ones, can lead to severe penalties.

This case serves as a strong reminder of the ethical obligations of lawyers and the importance of maintaining the public’s trust in the legal profession. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that lawyers must prioritize their clients’ interests and avoid actions that could be perceived as self-serving or exploitative.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR., A.C. No. 8494, October 05, 2016