AC 10672; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10672 March 18, 2015
EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Eduardo A. Maglente, as President of “Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III, Incorporated,” engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. to file a case to determine the true owner of land occupied by the Samahan’s members. In connection with this, complainant gave respondent the aggregate amount of P48,000.00 intended to cover the filing fees, as evidenced by respondent’s written acknowledgment. Despite receiving the payment, respondent failed to file the action in court. When confronted, respondent explained the money was insufficient to fully pay the filing fees. Complainant demanded the return of the money, but respondent claimed to have spent it and demanded more. When complainant persisted, respondent told him to shut up because it was not his money. Respondent, in his defense, denied spending the money, claiming he had prepared the pleading but discovered the filing fee was costly, relayed this to complainant who undertook to raise more funds, and was then surprised by the filing of the administrative case.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file the case (violating Rule 18.03). He also failed to account for and return the P48,000.00 received for filing fees despite demands (violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03). The Court modified the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon receipt of the Decision, with a stern warning. Furthermore, respondent is ORDERED to return the amount of P48,000.00 to complainant within ninety (90) days from the finality of the Decision, with failure to comply warranting a more severe penalty. The Court held that the directive to return the money was proper as the amount for filing fees was intimately linked to the lawyer-client relationship.