A.C. No. 11959 - Sison vs. Dumlao

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11959)

Key Dates

July 2013: Initial consultation and P35,000 deposit for psychiatric evaluation.
November 2013: Psychological Evaluation Report delivered.
February 16, 2015: IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report recommending dismissal.
June 5, 2015 & April 19, 2017: IBP Board of Governors resolutions dismissing complaint and denying reconsideration.
April 28, 2021: Supreme Court resolution.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (practice of profession and due process).
Code of Professional Responsibility (1988), Canons 7, 17, 18; Rules 18.03, 18.04.
Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 31.
Lawyer’s Oath.

Factual Background

Dr. Sison consulted Atty. Dumlao for an annulment against his wife and deposited P35,000 for a required psychiatric evaluation. Nine months passed without any update on the annulment filing. Dr. Sison wrote demanding return of the deposit; respondent refused. Dr. Sison then filed an administrative complaint alleging violations of Canons 7, 17, 18 and the Lawyer’s Oath.

Proceedings Below

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found no lawyer-client relationship (no written contract, no acceptance fee apart from the psychological evaluation, no client documents surrendered) and held that a conflict of interest justified respondent’s refusal to handle the case. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and dismissed the complaint; a motion for reconsideration was denied. Dr. Sison filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether Atty. Dumlao violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by (a) failing to inform Dr. Sison of the status of his case and (b) refusing to represent him due to conflict of interest without notice.

Establishment of Lawyer-Client Relationship

The Court reaffirmed that a lawyer-client relationship arises when a lawyer voluntarily acquiesces to a client’s request for legal assistance, irrespective of written agreement or payment of fees. Text messages exchanged between the parties demonstrate respondent’s repeated assurances to file the complaint, requests for documents, and scheduling of tasks—actions constituting professional employment.

Duties of Diligence and Communication

Under Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them. Rule 18.04 requires a lawyer to keep the client informed of the status of the case and to respond promptly to client inquiries. Having agreed to handle the annulment, respondent owed Dr. Sison diligence, competence, and timely communication.

Conflict of Interest and Duty to Inform

Although Canon 31 and Rule 14.03 permit a lawyer to decline representation on grounds of conflict of interest, respondent was obliged to inform the client once she decided to withdraw. The Court found that respondent failed to notify Dr. Sison of her withdrawal following her discovery of a consanguineous relationship and a request by the client’s mother-in-law. Notification came only in respondent’s answer to the administr

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11959)

Procedural Posture

Petition for review on certiorari filed by Dr. Eusebio D. Sison before the Supreme Court, assailing Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board resolutions dismissing his administrative complaint against Atty. Lourdes Philina B. Dumlao.
Administrative complaint originated from Dr. Sison’s verified complaint alleging violation of Canons 7, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and breach of the Lawyer’s Oath.
Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal in February 2015; IBP Board of Governors adopted recommendation on June 5, 2015, and denied motion for reconsideration on April 19, 2017.
Supreme Court resolution dated April 28, 2021 addresses whether respondent violated her duties of competence, diligence, and candor under the Code.

Facts of the Consultation and Fee Payment

In July 2013, Dr. Sison consulted Atty. Dumlao, a personal friend, to file an annulment case against his wife and deposited PHP 35,000.00 for a psychiatric evaluation.
Payment was made directly to Atty. Dumlao’s bank account; respondent later referred Dr. Sison to psychologist Mr. Nhorly Domenden, who conducted the evaluation.
Psychological Evaluation Report was delivered to Dr. Sison by email in November 2013.

Complainant’s Allegations and Administrative Complaint

After nine months without updates, Dr. Sison lost interest in proceeding and demanded refund of the PHP 35,000.00 deposit.
When respondent refused to return the fee, Dr. Sison filed a verified complaint for professional misconduct.
Alleged violations included: failure to uphold the dignity of the profession (Canon 7), breach of client loyalty (Canon 17), lack of competence and diligence (Canon 18), and non-compliance with the Lawyer’s Oath.

Respondent’s Defense and Conflict of Interest Claim

In her Answer, Atty. Dumlao asserted that she merely facilitated payment to the psychologist and that the fee was fully applied to the evaluation service.
She maintained there was no formal fee agreement for legal services beyond the psychiatric evaluation.
Respondent disclosed that Dr. Sison’s mother-in-law (a fifth-degree relative) requested that she refrain from handling the annulment due to family sensitivities, creating a conflict of interest.

Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation

Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera found no lawyer-client relationship absent a written contract for legal services or receipt of acceptance fee.
Recognized conflict of