A.C. No. 11246 - Pacao vs. Limos

In March 2008, Mariadel Pacao, vault custodian of BHF Pawnshop’s Mandaluyong branch, was charged with qualified theft by BHF.
At the preliminary investigation and upon filing before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Atty. Sinamar Limos appeared as counsel for BHF.

Arnold Pacao (“complainant”) initiated peace negotiations through Atty. Limos, who represented she was duly authorized by BHF.
BHF’s initial demand was ₱530,000; parties agreed on an initial payment of ₱200,000 to Atty. Limos, in exchange for a signed affidavit of desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint motion to approve settlement.

On October 29, 2009, complainant paid ₱200,000 to Atty. Limos, who signed an acknowledgment receipt.
Atty. Limos failed to deliver the agreed documents yet sought subsequent installment payments, which the complainant refused.

In June 2010, BHF’s representative informed the complainant that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF’s counsel and unauthorized to negotiate or receive money.
It was revealed that BHF never received the ₱200,000 payment.

Complainant sent a demand letter for refund; Atty. Limos refused.
On November 4, 2011, he filed a disbarment complaint with the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
Atty. Limos failed to file an answer, attend mandatory conferences (March 1, March 29, and April 19, 2012), or submit position papers.
On May 5, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment and restitution of ₱200,000 plus 12% interest per annum.
On April 19, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation; the records were transmitted to the Supreme Court on March 8, 2016.

Whether the verified complaint and records constitute a sufficient basis to disbar Atty. Sinamar Limos from the practice of law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court?