Title
Spouses Jacinto vs. Bangot, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 8494
Decision Date
Oct 5, 2016
A lawyer is suspended from the practice of law for five years after being found guilty of deceit, dishonesty, and unreasonableness in his dealings with clients, violating his ethical duties as an attorney.
Font Size

Case Digest (A.C. No. 8494)

Facts:

  • Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto, aged 81 and 76, filed a complaint against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. on December 8, 2009.
  • The Jacintos sought legal help from Atty. Bangot to stop a survey team from entering their property in Cagayan de Oro City.
  • The survey, ordered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, was conducted on October 10-11, 2008, to reconstitute a lost certificate of title.
  • The Jacintos' property, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-3387, had been subdivided into nine lots.
  • Atty. Bangot proposed filing a certiorari case to nullify the reconstitution order, suggesting that one lot would serve as his attorney's fees.
  • The Jacintos agreed to give him a portion of Lot No. 37926-H, but Atty. Bangot prepared a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with different terms, including a larger lot (Lot No. 37925-G) and an area of 300 square meters.
  • The Jacintos signed the MOA without reading it and later realized the terms were not as agreed.
  • They offered to pay Atty. Bangot in cash, but he refused, insisting on the lot.
  • The Jacintos filed a complaint against him.
  • The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended a one-year suspension, later increased to two years by the IBP Board of Governors.
  • Atty. Bangot denied the allegations, claiming the complaint was a harassment tactic.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court found Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. guilty of violating his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • He was suspended from the practice of law for five years, effective upon notice of the decision...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court held that Atty. Bangot grossly violated his ethical duties by not observing candor and fairness in his dealings with the Jacintos.
  • The IBP Commissioner's findings highlighted that the MOA was unfair and not entered into in good faith.
  • Atty. Bangot's conduct showed an instinctive interest in the Jacintos' property, and he misrepresented the terms of the agreement, taking advantage of their advanced age.
  • The attorney's fees he demanded were disproportionate to the minimal services he rendered, which included only filing a two-page Manifestation for Information.
  • The Court emphasized that the agreement was not a contingent fee arrangement and th...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.