G.R. No. A.C. No. 9838 June 10, 2019
PAZ C. SANIDAD, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSEPH JOHN GERALD M. AGUAS, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Paz C. Sanidad filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Joseph John Gerald M. Aguas for dishonesty, grossly deceitful conduct, malpractice, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Sanidad alleged that in 2001, she, respondent, and respondent’s brother, Julius M. Aguas, entered into a verbal agreement for the sale of a co-owned property in Quezon City for ₱1,500,000.00, payable in installments. From 2001 to 2011, Sanidad made several payments totaling ₱1,152,000.00 by depositing amounts into the BPI bank accounts of respondent and his brother, as evidenced by deposit slips. No acknowledgment receipts were issued. Despite receiving payments, respondent sent demand letters threatening Sanidad with eviction, avoided meeting her, and pressured her via telephone to vacate the property. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming Sanidad was merely a tenant whose lease had lapsed and who was facing eviction for non-payment of rentals. He asserted that payments from 2001 to 2010 were for rentals and that an agreement to sell the property for ₱1,500,000.00 was only reached in 2010, which Sanidad failed to pay. Respondent also claimed the disbarment case, along with a civil case for specific performance and damages and a criminal complaint for estafa filed by Sanidad, were meant to harass him. During the IBP proceedings, respondent manifested that he and Sanidad had amicably settled, resulting in the dismissal of the civil case and his turnover of the property’s title to Sanidad, even without receiving payment, on the understanding that all cases would be dismissed. However, only the civil case was dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Joseph John Gerald M. Aguas is administratively liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence supporting Sanidad’s claims. The amounts deposited were too substantial to be mere rental payments, and respondent’s eventual act of turning over the property title based on a settlement was inconsistent with his claim that no sale agreement existed and that payments were for rentals. Respondent’s conduct—receiving substantial payments without issuing acknowledgment receipts, lacking written contracts, and subsequently using his legal knowledge to send demand letters for eviction—demonstrated deceit, dishonesty, and a failure to act with fairness, thereby violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court modified the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation of mere admonition, finding it insufficient. Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.