A.C. No. 10579 - Foster vs. Agtang

Complaint and IBP Proceedings
On May 31, 2011, Erlinda Foster filed a complaint with the IBP–Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jaime V. Agtang for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful acts.
The IBP-CBD ordered respondent to file an Answer within 15 days. He failed to comply, filed a late verified Answer on November 11, 2011, and appeared after the mandatory conference was terminated.
Complainant filed a Reply on December 12, 2011. On April 18, 2012, she submitted Small Claims Case decisions ordering respondent to pay her and her husband P100,000.00 and P22,000.00, respectively, plus interest and costs.

Engagement and Allegations by Complainant
Complainant engaged respondent on a contract, paid P20,000.00 acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental expenses.
In September 2009, respondent requested a P100,000.00 loan for car repair, evidenced by a promissory note.
In November 2009, respondent collected P150,000.00 as “filing fee” for Civil Case No. 14791-65, when the actual court fee was only P22,410.00.
On April 23, 2010, respondent asked for an urgent loan of P70,000.00 (or P50,000.00), received P22,000.00.
On August 31, 2010, respondent demanded P50,000.00 as “representation expenses” for a judge’s favor, received P25,000.00 and later another P25,000.00 covered by a receipt.
On January 18, 2011, respondent’s driver collected P2,500.00 for a bottle of wine purportedly given to the judge.
Complainant’s case was dismissed on September 29, 2010; respondent did not inform her—she learned of dismissal only on December 14, 2010.
On February 2, 2011, complainant terminated respondent’s services and demanded return of all funds advanced; respondent did not reply.

Respondent’s Position
Admitted notarizing the deed but claimed no notarial fees were paid; acknowledged receiving P10,000.00 acceptance fee and P5,000.00 incidental fee.
Denied that the P100,000.00 and P22,000.00 amounts were loans, asserting they were gratuitous gifts; denied requesting P50,000.00 as bribe or P2,500.00 for wine.
Denied conflict of interest, citing the engagement of collaborating counsel and no written consent issues.

IBP–Board of Governors (BOG) Resolutions
July 3, 2012 Report: Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of ethical impropriety, recommended one-year suspension and refund of unpaid obligations.
September 28, 2013 IBP-BOG Resolution: Adopted recommendation with modification—reduced suspension to three months and ordered return of P127,590.00.
March 23, 2014 IBP-BOG Resolution: Denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration, maintained three-month suspension and refund order; respondent did not appeal to the Court.

Engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Canon 1).
Borrowing money from his client without protection (Rule 16.04, Canon 16).
Representing conflicting interests without written consent (Rule 15.03, Canon 15).