A.C. No. 8494. October 05, 2016
Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto, Complainants, vs. Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, elderly spouses, consulted respondent Atty. Bangot regarding a property dispute. They sought to prevent a survey team from intruding on their land, which was already titled and subdivided among their children. After reviewing their documents, Atty. Bangot proposed filing a certiorari petition. He insinuated that his attorney’s fee would be one of their lots. The complainants initially objected but later consented to give him a 250-square-meter portion of a specific lot (Lot No. 37926-H) not allocated to their children.
Atty. Bangot unilaterally prepared a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). When summoned to sign it, the trusting spouses did not read the document thoroughly. Upon returning home, they discovered the MOA stipulated a 300-square-meter portion from a different lot (Lot No. 37925-G), which was already committed to one of their daughters. The MOA also contained a clause preventing its revocation or amendment without the lawyer’s consent. The complainants felt deceived, offered to pay cash fees instead, but Atty. Bangot refused and challenged them to sue him.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Bangot violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath in his dealings with the complainants.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Bangot guilty of professional misconduct. The legal logic centers on the fiduciary duty of lawyers and the standards for attorney’s fees. A lawyer-client relationship is one of utmost trust and confidence. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all property of his client and shall account for it. Rule 16.01 specifically states a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected from the client.
The Court ruled that Atty. Bangot breached these duties. He employed deceit by preparing an MOA that did not reflect the true agreement—changing the lot designation and increasing the area—and then procuring the signatures of the elderly, trusting clients without ensuring they understood its contents. The one-sided, irrevocable clause further demonstrated his intent to take unfair advantage. His actions constituted dishonesty and overreaching. A contingent fee based on a portion of the client’s property is not inherently improper, but it must be reasonable and agreed upon with full knowledge and consent. Here, the agreement was vitiated by fraud. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Bangot from the practice of law for five years and declared him not entitled to any attorney’s fees, as he performed no substantial legal service to merit compensation under quantum meruit.