G.R. No. A.C. No. 10543. March 16, 2016.
NENITA D. SANCHEZ, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez sought the legal services of respondent Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos in March 2005 to represent her in the annulment of her marriage. The respondent accepted the engagement, fixing his fee at ₱150,000.00 plus ₱5,000.00 per hearing appearance. The complainant gave an initial amount of ₱70,000.00. When she inquired about her case in May 2005, the respondent informed her he would only start working upon full payment of the acceptance fee and that he intended to file a petition for legal separation, not annulment, and a higher fee would be required for annulment. The complainant withdrew the case and requested a refund of the amount paid, but the respondent refused, claiming he had already started working. A demand letter sent through Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez was ignored. The respondent, in his answer, admitted receiving ₱70,000.00 for a legal separation case based on the psychological incapacity of the husband, and he dismissed the demand letter as a “mere scrap of paper” that should be addressed “to the urinal project of the MMDA.” The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the respondent’s confusion between the grounds for legal separation and annulment sanctionable, recommended a refund of ₱30,000.00 (applying quantum meruit for ₱40,000.00 worth of services), and recommended a six-month suspension for using offensive language. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a warning and an order to return ₱30,000.00.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct.
2. Whether or not he should be ordered to return the attorney’s fees paid.

RULING

1. Yes, the respondent is liable for misconduct. The Supreme Court found the respondent liable for misrepresenting his professional competence. He demonstrated a lack of knowledge and skill by confusing the grounds for legal separation and annulment of marriage, specifically suggesting a legal separation case based on psychological incapacity, which is a ground for annulment or declaration of nullity, not legal separation. Furthermore, he violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive, and improper language (“mere scrap of paper,” “urinal project of the MMDA”) in his pleading against a fellow lawyer.
2. Yes, the respondent must return the entire amount received. The Court rejected the application of quantum meruit. The principle of quantum meruit requires that the attorney’s services must have produced a positive outcome or benefited the client. Here, the respondent failed to accomplish the tasks he was engaged to perform. He did not file any petition, rendered no appreciable legal services, and his demonstrated lack of basic legal knowledge rendered his services of no value to the client. Therefore, he was not entitled to any fee and must refund the full ₱70,000.00 received.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the IBP Resolution with MODIFICATION. Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos was FINED ₱10,000.00 for misrepresenting his professional competence and REPRIMANDED for using offensive and improper language, with a stern warning. He was ORDERED to RETURN to the complainant the sum of ₱70,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per annum from the date of the decision until full payment.