Paula P.

Abut
1-B
Foster vs. Agtang
TITLE
Erlinda Foster, complainant vs. Atty. Jaime V. Agtang, respondent
A.C NO. 10579, December 10, 2014, En Banc (Per Curiam)
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
This is a disbarment case.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR)
OPINION
I rule that Atty. Jaime V. Agtang be guilty of gross misconduct in violation of the Code
Professional Ethics with the following grounds:
a. The respondent misled his client regarding filing fees.
The private duty of a lawyer refers to his obligation to represent his client
faithfully, honestly and conscientiously.1 As a lawyer the obligation to his client covers
transparency in all aspects of the case including matters involving money.
Lawyers, since they are also considered as public servants, must be sensitive to
the financial resources of potential clients. Legal profession is not a trade or business and
such endeavour is motivated by public service and not the intent to gain. He must not use
his knowledge, privilege and standing in the society to manipulate those who seek their
assistance. The real reward of engaging into legal profession must be intangible such as
the feeling of satisfaction through serving. Salaries or acceptance fees are merely
1Agpalo (2009), Legal Ethics, pg. 11

incidental. Overpricing of filing fees are unreasonable considering the nature of the
profession.
b. A lawyer must not borrow money from his client.
Unless the clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice, a lawyer cannot borrow money from a client.2 In the case at bar, the
respondent attorney borrowed considerable amounts to the complainant. The reason for
his first loan is for the repair for his car. He borrowed another 22,000php in the moment
of urgency that was evidenced promissory notes and receipts. These loans have not been
paid. He is guilty of Sec. 8, no. 6, Rule 1403
It destroyed his integrity as a lawyer. He can borrow money from other persons
but since the complainant, his client trusted him, it would be easier to borrow without
interest. Moreover, since he has influence over his client, he can manipulate the date
when the obligation to pay should arise. A lawyer is expected to be a person of morality
and impartiality to preserve and strengthen the peoples faith in the judicial system. Their
actions and dealings with clients and the public represent the kind of judicial system they
are subject to. If the people experienced fraud and dishonesty from lawyers, they would
contemplate it as an excuse for not obeying the laws and the administration. If the people
who are supposed to advocate justice are those who violate it, there would be anarchy as
the people will disrespect and abrogate its laws.
c. A lawyer must not speak and act to the destruction of the integrity of the judicial
system
In the case at bar, the respondent obtained a considerable amount of money from
the complainant for a favourable judgement by the court. This is a shameful action
from the respondent considering that he is an advocate of justice. Justice shall be
rendered without the influence of money or prestige. There are cases when the client
himself offer for a favourable judgement but it is the obligation of a lawyer to refuse such
action and rely on the presentation of facts, arguments and necessary proceedings for the
2 Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
3 Willfull failure to pay a just debt

achievement of an impartial judgement. This is to show fair-play with the opponent-party,

candor to his colleague and respect due to the court. A lawyer should never introduce
such degrading offers for his own personal use at the expense of the integrity of the
system. Any amount of money or value of any mineral can never afford real justice.
People behind our judicial system is beyond competent intellectually, academically and
morally to be blinded by monetary interests. No member of the Philippine bar is worthy
to act in opposition to this reputation.
d. A lawyer must not betray his client
The relationship of the lawyer and his client is fiduciary in nature. It means that they
trust each other and must be transparent with each other. This obligation was not complied by
the respondent.
First, the complaint filed by the respondent was not properly executed to the interest
of his client: (a) the major differences of the documents issued by Tierra Realty were not
alleged; (b) the contract of buy and sell and the deed of conditional sale was not attached
thereto; (c) the complaint discussed the method of payment which was not the point of
contention of the case; (d) and the very anomalies complained of were not mentioned. These
deficiencies must have not been existed and if in case it did, it must be disclosed to the client.
These insufficiency leads to another misconduct of the respondent.
Second, the complainant was not notified by the respondent of the progress of the
case. The complainant learned that their case was dismissed through her own efforts to check
the status of the case. It is the responsibility of the lawyer to update his client every
development. A client must not be left hanging hoping and confident that his lawyer is
exhausting his expertise to the furtherance of the case in favour of the interest former. It is as
if the respondent left behind his client. A lawyer must acknowledge word of honor and his
promise to protect and advocate the interest of his client must not lead to abandonment
without just cause.
Lastly, the respondent violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 which states that except by
written consent of ALL concerned parties, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest.
Going back to the first obligation violated by the respondent under this section, there are
deficiencies in the complaint filed by the respondent for the complainant against Tierra

Realty. The respondent rendered service for Tierra Realty and he is liable for representing
conflict of interest. According to the rule, there must be consent of all concerned parties and
it is shown that there was no consent obtained from anyone with the parties concerned. Since
the relationship of lawyers and clients are built in trust and confidence, lawyers are ought to
preserve secrets and information about their clients. These must not be disclosed except when
it is admitted in court in favor to their side. In this case, the respondent has profound
knowledge about the complainant and Tierra Realty and it cannot be disregarded that conflict
of interest is the reason why there are discrepancies in the complaint filed by the respondent
for the complainant.
With the opinion and arguments presented, I agree that Atty. Jaime Agtang be disbarred for
grossly violating the CPR. In addition to which, he shall also be liable to pay what he owed to
Erlinda Foster.