MAGLENTE V ATTY.

AGCAOILI
AC 10672 MARCH 18, 2015

FACTS:
Eduardo Maglente, president of the Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III,
Inc engaged the services of Atty. Delfin Agcaoili to determine the true owner of the land
occupied by the Samahan. Maglente gave Atty. Agcaoili the amound of Php48, 000.00 to
cover the filing fees. However, Atty. Agcaoili failed to file an action in court and claims
that the amount given by Maglente was not enough to fully pay the filing fees. Maglente
then asked for the refund of the money but, Atty Agcaoili claimed that he already spent
the money and even demanded more money. When Maglente further insist for the return
of the amount, Atty Agcaoili told him to shut up as it was not Maglentes money in the
first place. Maglente was compelled to file this administrative complaint to recover the
amount he paid to the respondent. In his reply, Atty. Agcoili explained that he already
prepared the pleading however, it was only later when he discovered that the filing fee
was quite costly which prompted him to demand additional amount. The IBP
Investigating Officer recommended that Atty. Agcaoili be meted with the penalty of
Censure and directs the respondent to return the amount of Php48,000.00 to Maglente.
The IBP-BOG adopted the recommendation with modification on the penalty of Censure
to suspension from practice of law for 3 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Agcoili should be held administratively liable for the acts
complained of?

RULING:
Yes. The court affirmed the recommendation of the IBP with modification on the
penalty imposed. The law provides under the Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 that a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence and shall not neglect the a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable. Moreover, under the Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and 16.03, it is provided that a lawyer
shall hold in trust of all the money and properties that may come into his possession,
account and shall be delivered when due or upon demand. In the case at bar, Maglente
engaged the services of Agcoili for the purpose of filing a case in court and gave the
amount of Php48,000 for the corresponding filing fees. Atty. Agcoili, the moment that he
accepted the amount of money is duty bound to serve his client cause and properly
appropriate the money to its intended purpose. However, he failed. He did not file the
case and worst is he spent the money and it did not serve its purpose. Thereby, sentencing
him a penalty of 1 year suspension.