Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20563)
Key Dates
- March 2008: Criminal charge of qualified theft filed by BHF against Mariadel Pacao
- October 29, 2009: Complainant pays Atty. Limos ₱200,000 under alleged settlement agreement
- November 4, 2011: Disbarment complaint lodged before the IBP-CBD
- March–April 2012: Mandatory IBP-CBD conferences, all unattended by respondent
- May 5, 2014: Investigating Commissioner recommends disbarment and restitution with interest
- April 19, 2015: IBP Board of Governors adopts recommendation
- March 8, 2016: Records transmitted to the Supreme Court
- June 14, 2016: Supreme Court renders decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions)
- Rule 139-B, Rules of Court (disciplinary proceedings)
- Section 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment)
- Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics
Factual Background
Atty. Limos appeared at preliminary investigation for BHF in a qualified-theft case against Mariadel Pacao. Complainant negotiated a settlement through her, culminating in an agreement that he would pay ₱530,000 or in installments. On October 29, 2009, he delivered ₱200,000 to Atty. Limos, who acknowledged receipt as BHF’s counsel. She failed to produce the agreed affidavit of desistance, compromise agreement and joint motion for court filing, and later sought further installments despite lacking authority. In June 2010, the complainant learned from BHF’s representative that Atty. Limos was no longer authorized to negotiate or receive funds and that BHF never received the ₱200,000.
IBP-CBD Proceedings
Upon receipt of the complaint, the IBP-CBD required an answer and convened mandatory conferences on March 1, March 29, and April 19, 2012. Respondent did not answer, did not attend conferences, and did not submit position papers. The Investigating Commissioner found prima facie proof of fraud and deceit, recommending disbarment and ordering restitution of the ₱200,000 with 12% annual interest. The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted this recommendation. No motions for reconsideration were filed by either party.
Prior Disciplinary History
Atty. Limos had twice been suspended for three months each:
- Villaflores v. Atty. Limos (563 Phil. 453, 2007) – gross negligence and dereliction of duty in mishandling client’s fees.
- Wilkie v. Atty. Limos (591 Phil. 1, 2008) – deceit in obtaining a loan and issuing checks without sufficient funds.
Issue
Whether respondent’s fraudulent receipt of ₱200,000 and failure to account or return it, compounded by her prior suspensions and non-cooperation, justify her disbarment.
Court’s Analysis
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred for deceit, willful disobedience of lawful court orders, or unauthorized representation. Atty. Limos repeatedly exhibited dishonesty by concealing her lack of authority to negotiate or hold funds for BHF and by demanding further payment. Her conduct demonstrated a calculated plan to defraud the complainant. Her total non-appearance and failure to defend herself before the IBP-CBD reflected contemp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-20563)
Procedural Posture and Parties
- Complainant Arnold Pacao filed a verified complaint on November 4, 2011 seeking the disbarment of Respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos for conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
- The case was docketed as A.C. No. 11246 and argued en banc before the Supreme Court.
- Prior to elevation to the Supreme Court, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) conducted preliminary proceedings and issued a recommendation for disbarment.
Factual Background
- In March 2008, Mariadel Pacao, wife of the complainant and former vault custodian of BHF Pawnshop (Mandaluyong branch), was charged with qualified theft by BHF.
- Atty. Limos appeared at the preliminary investigation and in the Regional Trial Court as counsel for BHF.
- The complainant negotiated a possible settlement through Atty. Limos, who claimed authorization from BHF and demanded ₱530,000.00.
- Parties agreed that Pacao would pay an initial ₱200,000.00 to Atty. Limos in exchange for an affidavit of desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint motion to approve compromise.
Transaction and Breach of Agreement
- On October 29, 2009, Pacao delivered ₱200,000.00 to Atty. Limos, who issued an Acknowledgment Receipt confirming her undertakings as BHF counsel.
- Atty. Limos failed to deliver the affidavit of desistance or any court filings, nor did she remit the money to BHF.
- She subsequently attempted to collect further installments despite being unauthorized to negotiate or receive funds on BHF’s behalf.
Discovery of Misrepresentation
- In June 2010, Pacao learned from BHF’s representative, Camille Bonifacio, that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF’s counsel and had no authority to negotiate or receive payments.
- BHF confirmed it never received the ₱200,000.00 paid by Pacao to Atty. Limos.
Demand and IBP-CBD Proceedings
- Complainant sent a demand letter calling for the return of ₱200,000.00; Atty. Limos refused.
- Pac