Nery vs. Sampana

A lawyer who accepts a single package fee for multiple cases owes a distinct duty of full diligence, candor, and fidelity to each matter; failing to file a petition and misrepresenting its status constitutes malpractice, and the failure to return client funds upon demand gives rise to a presumption of misappropriation. The penalty is aggravated by a prior administrative violation despite a warning of more severe consequences for repetition.

In June 2008, Melody R. Nery hired Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana for two legal matters: the annulment of her marriage and her adoption by an alien adopter. The annulment was eventually granted, for which Nery paid ₱200,000.00. For the adoption, Sampana proposed a scheme in which the alien adopter would marry a close relative of Nery to satisfy the requirements of the Domestic Adoption Act, and provided Nery with a blurred copy of a marriage contract to use. Nery paid an additional ₱100,000.00 in installments for the adoption case.

• Engagement and Payment: Nery engaged Sampana in June 2008 for annulment of marriage and adoption by an alien adopter. For the adoption, Sampana suggested that the alien adopter marry Nery’s close relative and provided a blurred marriage contract for the scheme. Nery paid ₱100,000.00 for the adoption in three installments: ₱10,000.00 on 10 September 2008, ₱50,000.00 on 2 October 2008, and ₱40,000.00 on 17 November 2008. She did not ask for receipts.
• Misrepresentation about Filing: On 14 February 2009, Sampana sent Nery a text message stating that the petition for adoption had already been filed and published, and that they needed to rehearse for the hearing. He later told her that a hearing was set on 5 March 2010 at Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan, then reset to 12 March 2010. He represented that her presence was unnecessary because the hearing was only jurisdictional.
• Discovery: On 11 March 2010, Nery inquired at Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan and obtained a certification dated 6 April 2010 that no petition for adoption had been filed.
• Demand and Refusal: That same day, Nery confronted Sampana and demanded the return of the ₱100,000.00. Sampana agreed to reimburse, but insisted on deducting a ₱12,000.00 filing fee. Nery refused the deduction because no petition had been filed. Subsequent demands went unheeded.
• Respondent’s Admissions and Defense: Sampana admitted receiving “one package fee” for both the annulment and adoption cases. He claimed he prepared the petition but did not file it because Nery had not yet provided the certification of the alien adopter’s qualification to adopt from the Japanese Embassy. He denied misleading Nery, suggesting she might have confused the annulment proceedings with the adoption case, and offered to refund the money after deducting his legal services and actual expenses.

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Nery argued that Sampana failed to file the petition for adoption despite receiving the agreed payment, made her believe that the petition had already been filed and published, and refused to return the money despite repeated demands.

• Unsubstantiated Allegations: Sampana argued that Nery’s allegations were self-serving and unsubstantiated.
• Non-Filing Justified: He maintained that he prepared the petition but could not file it because Nery failed to furnish the required certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt from the Japanese Embassy.
• No Misrepresentation: He denied misleading Nery and suggested that she may have mistaken the annulment proceedings for the adoption case. He offered to refund the amount after deducting his legal services and expenses.

• Malpractice and Breach of Canons: Whether Sampana’s failure to file the petition, misrepresentation as to its filing, and retention of client funds constituted malpractice and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the recommended penalty of three months suspension was adequate given Sampana’s prior administrative record and the nature of the violation.

• Malpractice and Breach of Canons: Sampana’s acts constituted malpractice. The acceptance of money from a client established an attorney-client relationship and the accompanying duties of fidelity, candor, fairness, loyalty, competence, and diligence. Sampana unjustifiably failed to file the petition and falsely informed Nery that it had been filed and published. His proffered excuse—that he was waiting for the certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt—was disingenuous because under Section 7(b)(iii) of Republic Act No. 8552, the very provision he suggested to make the adoption possible, that certification is waived when the alien adopter jointly adopts a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse. Having no valid reason for non-filing, Sampana neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of Canons 15, 16, 17, and 18, and Rules 16.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His failure to return the funds upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had appropriated the money for his own use.
• Appropriate Penalty: The penalty was increased to suspension from the practice of law for three years. Sampana had previously been found guilty of violating Canon 1 in Lising v. Sampana for an unethical double sale of land, and was suspended for one year with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. Considering this prior administrative offense, the ruling in Rollon v. Naraval where a two-year suspension was imposed for failing to render legal services after receiving fees, and the gravity of the present violations, the Court deemed a three-year suspension proper, with a warning against further infractions.

• Duty of Fidelity and Diligence Upon Acceptance of Fee — Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. (Canons 15, 16, 17, 18; Rules 16.03, 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility)
• Presumption of Misappropriation from Failure to Return Funds — A lawyer’s failure to return client funds upon demand gives rise to the presumption that the lawyer has appropriated the money for personal use, in violation of the trust reposed by the client and the public confidence in the legal profession.
• Waiver of Alien Adopter’s Certification in Joint Adoption — In a joint adoption by an alien adopter and his or her Filipino spouse of a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt from the foreign embassy is waived. (Section 7(b)(iii), R.A. No. 8552)

• “Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance.” — This articulates the core duty triggered by receipt of payment and underpins the finding of malpractice.
• “A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the legal profession.” — This defines the legal consequence of the refusal to reimburse, shifting the evidentiary burden and establishing the gravity of the violation.

• Lising v. Sampana, A.C. No. 7958, 3 March 2014 — Applied as a prior administrative case in which Sampana was suspended for one year for unethical conduct (double sale of land) and warned against repetition. This record was the primary ground for increasing the penalty.
• Rollon v. Naraval, 493 Phil. 24 (2005) — Cited as a comparative authority where a two-year suspension was imposed for failure to render any legal service after receiving a filing and partial service fee, supporting a penalty higher than the IBP’s recommendation.
• Dhaliwal v. Dumaguing, A.C. No. 9390, 1 August 2012, 678 SCRA 68 — Relied upon for the rule that failure to return client funds upon demand gives rise to a presumption of misappropriation.
• Yutuc v. Penuela, A.C. No. 7904, 22 September 2008 (Unsigned Resolution) — Cited for the principle that acceptance of money from a client establishes the attorney-client relationship and imposes the duty of fidelity.

• Canons 15, 16, 17, and 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Applied as the overarching standards imposing duties of candor, fairness, loyalty, competence, diligence, fidelity to the client’s cause, and holding client funds in trust.
• Rule 16.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Applied to hold Sampana accountable for failing to deliver Nery’s funds upon demand.
• Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Applied as the direct prohibition against neglecting a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer, making him liable.
• Section 7(b)(iii), Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) — Applied to demonstrate that the certification Sampana claimed he was awaiting was waived under the precise provision he had suggested, exposing his excuse as without legal basis and disingenuous.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, and Francis H. Jardeleza concurred. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza were on official leave.