Case Digest (A.C. No. 13959)
Facts:
Maria Charisse Ann Sucgang-Perez v. Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano, A.C. No. 13959 (Formerly CBD Case No. 22-6628), November 26, 2024, Supreme Court En Banc, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Maria Charisse Ann Sucgang-Perez engaged respondent Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano in June 2019 to handle a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. They executed a Proposal whereby Sucgang-Perez paid PHP 203,000.00 by check on June 8, 2019 as an acceptance fee covering initial study, pleadings, and the engagement of a clinical psychologist, among other services; Atty. Sore-Romano issued an Acknowledgment Receipt treating the sum as full payment for handling the case. Sucgang-Perez thereafter underwent a psychological evaluation on June 4, 2020 with Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez, but later learned that Dr. Lopez had not been paid in full and that PHP 35,000.00 remained outstanding.
After sporadic communications and the involvement of other personnel from Atty. Sore-Romano’s firm, the petition was belatedly filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo City on February 9, 2021. The RTC dismissed the petition by Order dated March 1, 2021 for procedural defects (lack of proper verification and absence of documentary and judicial affidavits required under Rule 7, Section 6 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure). Sucgang-Perez terminated respondent’s services and demanded return of fees; repeated demands and notices went unanswered.
Sucgang-Perez filed a verified complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) Investigating Commissioner Christian E. Chan recommended respondent be found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended a three-year suspension and return of the PHP 203,000.00. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the finding of misconduct and suspended respondent for three years but increased the fine to PHP 20,000.00 and set aside the recommendation to return the acceptance fee on the ground that legal services were rendered. Respondent failed to file an answer, attend mandatory conference, or file position papers as directed by the IBP.
The matter was brought to the Court in Administrative Case No. 13959 (A.C. No. 13959). The Court applied the transitory provisions of the new ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Sore-Romano’s acts and omissions warrant disbarment or other disciplinary penalties under the CPRA?
- Must Atty. Sore-Romano return any portion of the acceptance fee paid by Sucg...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)