A.C. No. 10196 - Nery vs. Sampana

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10196)

Facts: Engagement and Payments

In June 2008 Nery engaged Sampana to handle two matters: annulment of marriage and adoption by an alien adopter. Nery paid P200,000 for the annulment matter and P100,000 for the adoption matter, the latter paid in three installments: P10,000 on 10 September 2008; P50,000 on 2 October 2008; and P40,000 on 17 November 2008. Nery trusted Sampana and did not insist on receipts. Sampana allegedly obtained from Nery a blurred copy of a marriage contract to be used as proof that an aunt would stand as the spouse of the alien adopter.

Facts: Alleged Misrepresentations and Discovery

Sampana reportedly informed Nery by text on 14 February 2009 that he had filed the petition for adoption and that it had been published; he later advised rehearsal for a hearing and stated hearings were set for 5 March 2010 and then 12 March 2010 in Branch 11, Malolos. On 11 March 2010, Nery personally checked with Branch 11 and discovered no petition for adoption had been filed. Nery thereafter demanded refund of the P100,000; Sampana initially agreed to refund but said he would deduct a P12,000 filing fee, which Nery contested because the petition had not been filed.

Procedural History before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

Nery filed a verified complaint on 18 June 2010. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued an order (25 February 2011) noting Sampana failed to file an answer and failed to appear at the mandatory conference; both parties were directed to file position papers. In his position paper, Sampana admitted receiving a single package fee covering both matters, asserted he had prepared but not filed the adoption petition because he awaited a certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt from the Japanese Embassy, and denied misleading Nery. Sampana also stated the annulment matter may have overshadowed the adoption matter and expressed willingness to refund after deducting legal fees and expenses.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

The investigating commissioner (Atty. Eldrid C. Antiquiera) found Sampana guilty of malpractice for (1) making the complainant believe the adoption petition had been filed when it had not, and (2) failing to file the petition despite receiving the fee. The commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for three months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with modification, ordering: suspension for three months and return of P100,000 to Nery with legal interest within thirty days from receipt of notice.

Legal Standards Applied by the Court

The Court emphasized the duties arising from the attorney-client relationship: fidelity, competence, diligence, candor, and the obligation to hold and return client funds. It cited the Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 15 (candor and fairness), Canon 16 (holding client funds in trust and delivery upon demand; Rule 16.03), Canon 17 (fidelity), and Canon 18 (competence and diligence; Rule 18.03—neglect renders the lawyer liable). The Court also recognized the presumption that a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand funds held for a client suggests appropriation and breach of trust, consistent with disciplinary precedents.

Court’s Analysis of Respondent’s Conduct

The Court found Sampana’s excuses unsatisfactory and characterized his explanation—waiting for an embassy certification and reliance on a suggested strategy involving the alien’s marriage to a relative—as disingenuous. Sampana admitted receiving a combined fee but unjustifiably failed to file the adoption petition, misinformed the client as to filing and hearing status, and refused timely reimbursement. The Court concluded Sampana neglected the legal matter entrusted to him and violated duties of candor, diligence and fidelity. His failure to return the funds upon demand supported the presumption of appropriation and aggravated the misconduct.

Prior Discipline and Aggravating Considerations

The Court noted Sampana’s prior administrative discipline: in Lising v. Sampana he had been suspended for one year for unethical and illegal conduct (double sale of land), with a warning that repetition would be treated more severely. The Court also cited Rollon v. Naraval, where a two-year suspension was imposed for failure to render services after receiving fees. Given Sampana’s prior sanction and the nature of the present misconduct (receiving fees, failing to act, misleading the client, and retainin

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10196)

The Case

This is a disbarment/administrative complaint filed by Melody R. Nery (complainant) against Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana (respondent).
The complaint alleges that Sampana failed to file a petition for adoption despite having received legal fees for that purpose, and that he misled Nery into believing the petition was filed.
The case was resolved by the Supreme Court en banc, resulting in disciplinary sanctions.

Issues Presented

Whether Sampana received legal fees for the adoption petition and yet failed to file the petition.
Whether Sampana made the complainant believe that he had filed the petition for adoption when in fact no petition was filed.
Whether Sampana’s conduct constitutes malpractice and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disciplinary sanctions, and, if so, the appropriate penalty and monetary relief.

Factual Background

In June 2008, Nery engaged Sampana to handle two matters: annulment of marriage and adoption by an alien adopter.
The petition for annulment was eventually granted; Nery paid Sampana P200,000.00 for that matter.
Regarding the adoption, Sampana inquired whether Nery had an aunt who could be represented as the wife of the alien adopter.
Sampana provided Nery a blurred copy of a marriage contract that would be used for the adoption.
Nery paid Sampana a total of P100,000.00 for the adoption in three installments: P10,000.00 on 10 September 2008; P50,000.00 on 2 October 2008; and P40,000.00 on 17 November 2008.
Nery stopped asking for receipts because she trusted Sampana.
On 14 February 2009, Sampana sent a text message to Nery stating that he had filed the petition for adoption and that it had been published; he also said they needed to rehearse for the hearing.
Sampana later told Nery that a hearing was set for 5 March 2010 in Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan, and then that the hearing was reset to 12 March 2010; he claimed Nery’s personal presence was unnecessary because the hearing was only jurisdictional.
On 11 March 2010, Nery inquired at Branch 11 of Malolos and discovered that no petition for adoption had been filed in that court.
On the afternoon of 11 March 2010, Nery met Sampana and sought reimbursement of the P100,000.00; Sampana agreed but stated he would deduct a filing fee of P12,000.00.
Nery insisted that no filing fee should be deducted because the petition had never been filed.
Nery repeatedly demanded reimbursement thereafter, but Sampana did not return the amount.

Procedural History Before the IBP-CBD

A verified complaint was filed by Nery on 18 June 2010.
In an Order dated 25 February 2011, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), through Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera, noted that Sampana failed to file an answer to the complaint and failed to appear at the mandatory conference; both parties were directed to submit position papers.
Nery’s position paper reiterated the allegations in her complaint.
Sampana’s position paper, dated 25 March 2011, denied the allegations as self-serving and unsubstantiated but admitted receiving a “one package fee” for both annulment and adoption matters.
Sampana alleged he initially objected to the adoption due to concerns about the alien adopter’s age, civil status and nationality but that Nery insisted. He claimed he suggested that if the alien adopter married a close relative of Nery, the adoption could proceed.
Sampana asserted he required documents, including marriage contracts and a certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt from the Japanese Embassy, and that Nery supplied the blurred marriage contract but not the certification.
Sampana claimed he prepared the petition but did not file it because he was waiting for the certification, denied misleading Nery, suggested confusion between the annulment and adoption proceedings, and committed to refund the amount after deducting legal services and expenses.

IBP-CBD Findings and Recommendation

Commissioner Antiquiera found Sampana guilty of malpractice for making Nery believe the petition for adoption had been filed and for failing to file the petition despite receiving legal fees.
Commissioner Antiquiera recommended suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months.
The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XX-2013-217 (20 March 2013), adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation with modification: it found Sampana guilty of malpractice for failure to file the petition and for making the complainant believe he filed it, suspended Sampana for three (3) months, and ordered Sampana to return P100,000.00 with legal interest within thirty days from receipt of notice.

Supreme Court’s Findings of Law and Fact

The Court accepted the IBP Board of Governors’ reco