AC 6317; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 6317 August 31, 2006
LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Luzviminda Lijauco engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rogelio Terrado in January 2001 for a fee of P70,000.00. She alleged this was to assist in recovering her P180,000.00 bank deposit and the release of her foreclosed house and lot in Calamba, Laguna, which was the subject of LRC Case No. B-2610 for a writ of possession. Complainant claimed respondent neglected the matter by failing to appear in court hearings and by not protecting her interests when she subsequently entered into a Compromise Agreement to end the case.
Respondent denied the accusations, contending that the P70,000.00 fee was solely for the recovery of the bank deposit and did not cover the LRC case. The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Rogelio Terrado is administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of multiple violations. The Court upheld the IBP’s findings, rejecting respondent’s defense that his fee was limited to the deposit recovery. The record showed he actively acted as counsel in the compromise agreement for the LRC case, explaining its contents to complainant. The Court agreed with the IBP Commissioner that a P70,000.00 fee for recovering a P180,000.00 deposit was unreasonable per se, violating the rule on charging only fair and reasonable fees.
More critically, respondent admitted dividing the legal fee with persons not licensed to practice law, a clear violation of Rule 9.02. Furthermore, his actions constituted deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, as he misled complainant into signing the compromise agreement by falsely assuring her she could still redeem her property after three years, despite the agreement stipulating the expiration of the redemption period and a release of claims. This demonstrated neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him and a failure to serve his client with competence and diligence.
The practice of law is a privilege demanding high standards of morality and diligence. Respondent’s actions betrayed his duties to his client and the legal profession. Accordingly, the Court suspended Atty. Terrado from the practice of law for six months, ordered him to return the P70,000.00 fee to complainant, and issued a stern warning.