A.C. No. 13959 - Sucgang-Perez vs. Sore-Romano

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13959)

Factual Background

Sucgang-Perez engaged Atty. Sore-Romano to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage after she separated from her husband. The parties executed a Proposal under which Sucgang-Perez paid PHP 203,000.00 as an acceptance fee by check dated June 8, 2019, and Atty. Sore-Romano issued an Acknowledgment Receipt acknowledging full payment for handling the case. The fee was intended to cover an initial study, drafting of pleadings and related documents, and payment for a clinical psychologist, Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez, who conducted Sucgang-Perez’s psychological evaluation on June 4, 2020. Sucgang-Perez later learned that Dr. Lopez had an outstanding balance of PHP 35,000.00 because only PHP 15,000.00 was paid on June 23, 2020. Efforts by Sucgang-Perez to obtain explanation and case updates from Atty. Sore-Romano met with delay and limited response.

Events Leading to the Dismissal of the Petition

After prolonged inactivity and substitute assistance from firm personnel, Atty. Sore-Romano filed the petition for nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City on February 9, 2021. The petition, however, lacked proper verification and did not attach the judicial affidavits and documentary evidence required under Rule 7, Section 6 of the 2019 Amendments. Consequently, the RTC dismissed the petition outright in an Order dated March 1, 2021 for those procedural infirmities. Sucgang-Perez only discovered the dismissal upon her own inquiry at the trial court and thereafter terminated the law firm’s services.

Initiation and Course of Disciplinary Proceedings

Sucgang-Perez filed a complaint with the IBP alleging that Atty. Sore-Romano abandoned the case after receipt of the fee, failed to keep the client informed, neglected to pay the psychologist in full, and lacked familiarity with the 2019 Amendments which led to dismissal. Atty. Sore-Romano was directed to file an answer and attend mandatory proceedings, but she failed to comply with several IBP directives. Investigating Commissioner Christian E. Chan issued a Report and Recommendation finding violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 17; and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR, and recommended suspension for three years and return of the accepted fee. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the suspension recommendation, increased the monetary fine to PHP 20,000.00 for failure to cooperate with IBP proceedings, and declined to order the return of the acceptance fee on the ground that services had been rendered.

Issue Presented to the Court

The central issue before the Court was whether Atty. Sore-Romano’s acts and omissions warranted disbarment or other disciplinary sanctions under the CPRA, and whether any portion of the acceptance fee should be returned to Sucgang-Perez.

Court’s Determination of Applicable Law

The Court applied the transitory provision of the CPRA in A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, finding it applicable to pending matters such as this proceeding. The Court treated the established allegations under the IBP records against the standards and specific provisions of the CPRA and the relevant provisions of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Liability for Dishonesty and Negligence

The Court found that Atty. Sore-Romano engaged in simple dishonesty by representing, through a text message, that Dr. Lopez’s professional fee had been fully paid when only a partial payment was remitted and the client was not informed of the outstanding balance. The Court also found multiple lapses in competence and diligence under Canon IV of the CPRA: undue delay in filing the petition nearly two years after engagement, failure to file a properly verified petition with required judicial affidavits and documentary evidence thus causing outright dismissal, and failure to keep the client informed of the petition’s status and the dismissal. The Court further found willful disobedience to IBP orders when Atty. Sore-Romano repeatedly ignored directives to file an answer, attend a mandatory conference, and submit a position paper.

Aggravating Circumstances and Prior Discipline

The Court recognized two aggravating circumstances: a prior administrative sanction in A.C. No. 12728 where Atty. Sore-Romano had previously been suspended for three months for analogous professional violations, and her long experience of fifteen years in practice. These factors warranted escalation of sanctions within the ranges prescribed by the CPRA.

Sanctions Imposed

Applying Canon VI, Section 40 on multiple offenses and the sanctioning rules of the CPRA, the Court imposed separate penalties for each discrete infraction and increased sanctions due to the aggravating circumstances. For simple dishonesty, the Court ordered suspension for one year and a fine of PHP 200,000.00. For simple negligence in failing to inform the client, the Court ordered suspension for one year and a fine of PHP 200,000.00. For two counts of gross negligence arising from delays and filing of a procedurally infirm pleading that deprived the client of her day in court, the Court imposed a two-year suspension and a fine of PHP 210,000.00. For disobedience to IBP orders, the Court ordered suspension for one year and a fine of PHP 200,000.00. The penalties aggregate to suspension from the practice of law for five years and an aggregate fine of PHP 810,000.00, payable within three months from receipt of the Decision. The Court imposed a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar misconduct would be dealt with more severely.

Ruling on Return of Client’s Money

Diverging from the IBP Board, the Court concluded that Atty. Sore-Romano must reimburse Sucgang-Perez PHP 35,000.00, representing the unpaid portion of the psychologist’s fee which the fee arrangement contemplated would be deduc

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13959)

Parties and Procedural Posture

MARIA CHARISSE ANN SUCGANG-PEREZ filed a verified complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging malpractice and seeking disbarment and refund of attorney's fees.
ATTY. MA. AURORA PAREDES SORE-ROMANO was the respondent accused of mishandling and abandoning the annulment case entrusted to her.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension and refund, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted a resolution modifying sanctions and denying the refund.
The case reached the Supreme Court en banc on administrative charges under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability by virtue of A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant engaged respondent after viewing respondent’s website and paid PHP 203,000.00 by Eastwest Bank Check No. 62809 dated June 8, 2019 as an acceptance fee.
Respondent issued an Acknowledgment Receipt treating the amount as full payment for handling the case and for the clinical psychologist’s fee.
The complainant completed a psychological evaluation on June 4, 2020 with Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez but later learned PHP 35,000.00 remained unpaid to Dr. Lopez.
The petition for declaration of nullity was filed only on February 9, 2021 after delays and a Memorandum of Agreement promising filing that day and refund if respondent failed to comply.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City dismissed the petition on March 1, 2021 for lack of proper verification and for absence of documentary and affidavit evidence required under Rule 7, Sec. 6 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.
The complainant alleged lack of communication, procedural incompetence, misuse of client resources to finish the petition, and suspected appropriation of fees.

IBP Proceedings and Findings

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 17, and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the former Code and recommended three years suspension, fine, and refund of PHP 203,000.00.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to suspend respondent for three years but increased the fine to PHP 20,000.00 and declined to order refund of the acceptance fee on the ground that legal services were rendered.
Respondent repeatedly failed to file an answer, attend a mandatory conference, and submit a position paper before the IBP.

Applicable Rules and Framework

The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) promulgated by A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC governs the ethical standards applicable to pending cases.
Canon II, Sec. 1 of the CPRA reproduces the prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct found in the former Canon 1, Rule 1.01.
Canon IV, Secs. 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the CPRA prescribe duties of competence, diligence, punctuality, and the duty to update the client.
Canon VI, Secs. 34, 37, 39, 40, and 41 of the CPRA set out classifications of offenses, sanctions for less serious and serious offenses, rules on multiple offenses, and re