Asto. Adm. No. 743 - Aguirre vs. Ramos

On or about November 1, 1934, Vidal Aguirre, through his son Ramon Z. Aguirre, engaged Tomas L. Ramos as counsel to initiate a civil suit in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental.
The action was to reclaim a parcel of land against Simplicio Aguirre and another party, with Vidal Aguirre being the plaintiff.
The parties agreed that if the case was successful or if an amicable settlement was reached, the attorney would receive a fee of ₱1,000 upon the termination of the case.
Additionally, an advance payment of ₱200 was given to Tomas L. Ramos to cover court filing fees and travel expenses.

Tomas L. Ramos accepted the mandate and received the ₱200, but he neither filed the complaint nor pursued an amicable settlement with the potential defendants.
As a result of his inaction, the aggrieved parties, represented by Vidal and Ramon Z. Aguirre, lodged a complaint on January 7, 1936, alleging that Ramos had violated his duty as an attorney and engaged in conduct amounting to malpractice.

Ramon Z. Aguirre repeatedly demanded that Ramos refund the ₱200 advance since no meaningful progress was made in his case, nor was there any settlement reached.
Instead, Ramos offered excuses, repeatedly requesting extensions and ultimately failing to return the money.
Although Ramos admitted to the factual basis of the complaint, he defended himself by asserting that he had made efforts to negotiate an amicable settlement and had returned ₱125, retaining ₱75 as his professional fee.

The investigations revealed that Ramos made no substantial effort to negotiate or to initiate the case, thus breaching his professional responsibilities.
His claim of having attempted an amicable settlement, as well as the partial reimbursement, was not adequately supported by evidence (e.g., no receipt was produced to confirm the ₱125 return).
Ramos’ defense that he did not act in bad faith was noted; he had, in fact, shown willingness by asking for more time to return the funds.

Whether Tomas L. Ramos, by accepting the advance without promptly initiating the case or negotiating an amicable settlement, violated his ethical and professional responsibilities as an attorney.
Whether the partial return of funds (₱125 with ₱75 retained as professional fees) by Ramos sufficiently mitigates the breach of his duty and the resulting harm to his clients.
Whether the lack of evidence establishing malice or bad faith in Ramos’ conduct should preclude him from receiving a disciplinary sanction.
Whether the appropriate corrective measure is a suspension from the practice of law or merely a reprimand, considering the need to maintain public trust in the legal profession.