Sucgang-Perez vs. Sore-Romano

A lawyer who commits multiple distinct infractions under the CPRA arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding is liable for separate penalties for each offense, with aggravating circumstances warranting penalties not exceeding double the maximum prescribed, provided that where a single act gives rise to more than one offense, only the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed.

Complainant Maria Charisse Ann Sucgang-Perez sought to file a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage after leaving the family home with her children due to abuses from her husband. She found respondent Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano through the latter's website, which advertised expertise in family law and annulment proceedings with over 15 years of legal practice. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), promulgated as A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC on April 11, 2023, governs the ethical standards imposed upon Filipino lawyers and contains a transitory provision making it applicable to all pending and future cases.

Sucgang-Perez decided to file an action for declaration of nullity of her marriage after leaving the family home with her children due to abuses from her husband. Not knowing any lawyer, she came across Atty. Sore-Romano's website, which advertised the latter's expertise in family law and annulment proceedings with over 15 years of practice. Following their initial meeting, Atty. Sore-Romano sent a Proposal on June 3, 2019, and the parties agreed that Sucgang-Perez would pay PHP 203,000.00 as acceptance fee, covering the initial study of the case, drafting of pleadings, engagement of a clinical psychologist who would prepare the psychological evaluation report, and other legal services necessary to the case. Sucgang-Perez issued Eastwest Bank Check No. 62809 dated June 8, 2019 for the full amount, and Atty. Sore-Romano issued an Acknowledgment Receipt treating the amount as full payment for handling the case. Sucgang-Perez was then instructed to organize pertinent documents and undergo a psychological evaluation to be administered by Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez.

Sucgang-Perez completed her psychological evaluation with Dr. Lopez on June 4, 2020. However, she later discovered that Dr. Lopez's professional fee remained unpaid, contrary to her prior agreement with Atty. Sore-Romano. After several follow-ups, Atty. Sore-Romano confirmed on June 23, 2020 that she had paid Dr. Lopez, but in fact only remitted PHP 15,000.00, leaving a balance of PHP 35,000.00. Thereafter, Sucgang-Perez no longer received updates from Atty. Sore-Romano despite persistent attempts to communicate. On December 30, 2020, a certain Emilio Martin A. Borja introduced himself as part of the litigation support services of Atty. Sore-Romano's firm, tasked to prepare the petition. Borja assured Sucgang-Perez that the pleading would be filed soon, but later informed her of a delay due to a discrepancy in the prayer for reliefs. Sucgang-Perez then learned that she would be assisted by a certain Atty. Gerard Gaerlan owing to Atty. Sore-Romano's other commitments in Marinduque. On January 28, 2021, Atty. Gaerlan informed Sucgang-Perez that the petition was still unsigned and the annexes were in disarray, and disclosed that several other clients had similar complaints against Atty. Sore-Romano.

Alarmed, Sucgang-Perez advised Atty. Sore-Romano's law firm on February 3, 2021 that she would demand a refund of the acceptance fee and return of all documents, and expressed her desire for Atty. Gaerlan to attend to her case. It was only then that Atty. Sore-Romano took it upon herself to file the petition. On February 9, 2021, Atty. Sore-Romano went to Sucgang-Perez's residence requesting a chance to redeem herself, and presented a Memorandum of Agreement undertaking to update and file the petition by the end of that business day, with a stipulation that the acceptance fee would be returned should she fail to comply or incur further delay. To finish the petition on time, Atty. Sore-Romano and her staff worked in Sucgang-Perez's house, using her printer and paper, and even asked her to prepare food for them. The petition was lodged before the RTC of Antipolo City on February 9, 2021.

The RTC issued an Order on March 1, 2021 dismissing the petition outright due to several procedural infirmities. The petition lacked proper verification and was bereft of documentary evidence as required under Rule 7, Section 6 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure; no judicial affidavits of witnesses or other competent evidence to establish juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability of the psychological incapacity of Sucgang-Perez's husband were attached. The psychological evaluation report itself remained unsigned, as Dr. Lopez had not been fully paid. Due to lack of communication from Atty. Sore-Romano, Sucgang-Perez directly inquired with the trial court and discovered the dismissal, prompting her to terminate the services of Atty. Sore-Romano's firm. She sent demands for full refund on April 19, 2021, a Termination Notice and Demand for Full Refund to Atty. Sore-Romano's known addresses, and a final demand giving respondent until June 30, 2021 to comply—all of which went unheeded. Sucgang-Perez then filed a complaint with the IBP. Despite being directed to file an answer, attend a mandatory conference, and submit a position paper, Atty. Sore-Romano did not comply with any of these directives.

• Duty of Fidelity: Sucgang-Perez asserted that Atty. Sore-Romano's duty of fidelity to her cause arose upon payment of the acceptance fee, and that every case a lawyer accepts deserves full attention, skill, and competence. She claimed that Atty. Sore-Romano violated the CPR when she abandoned the case without justification despite receipt of the professional fee.
• Failure to Update: Sucgang-Perez maintained that Atty. Sore-Romano did not exert efforts to update her on the status of the case.
• Failure to Keep Abreast of Legal Developments: Sucgang-Perez avowed that Atty. Sore-Romano breached her duty to keep abreast of legal developments, recent enactments, and jurisprudence, being woefully unaware of the amendments introduced by the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure despite her claimed expertise, resulting in the dismissal of the case on a mere technicality.
• Misuse of Client's Money: Sucgang-Perez contended that it was Atty. Sore-Romano's duty to handle her client's money properly to prevent misuse, which she failed to do when Dr. Lopez was not paid in full and when she used the client's personal resources to finish the petition. Such actions set off the presumption that Atty. Sore-Romano appropriated the money for herself.

• Disbarment/Disciplinary Liability: Whether Atty. Sore-Romano's acts warrant her disbarment from the practice of law.
• Proper Penalties: Whether the penalties recommended by the IBP require modification under the CPRA.
• Refund of Acceptance Fee: Whether Atty. Sore-Romano should return a portion of the acceptance fee to Sucgang-Perez.

• Disbarment/Disciplinary Liability: Yes, respondent was found guilty of multiple CPRA violations, though disbarment was not imposed. She committed simple dishonesty, simple negligence, two counts of gross negligence, and disobedience to IBP orders, each arising from separate acts or omissions warranting separate penalties under Canon VI, Section 40.
• Proper Penalties: Yes, modification was warranted. Under the CPRA, separate penalties were imposed for each offense, with two aggravating circumstances (a prior administrative infraction and 15 years in practice) justifying penalties not exceeding double the maximum prescribed, resulting in an aggregate of five years suspension and PHP 810,000.00 in fines.
• Refund of Acceptance Fee: Yes, partially. The acceptance fee included Dr. Lopez's professional fee, and since Atty. Sore-Romano failed to remit full payment, she was ordered to reimburse Sucgang-Perez PHP 35,000.00 with 6% interest per annum, notwithstanding the IBP Board's contrary ruling that legal services had been rendered.

• Disbarment/Disciplinary Liability: The CPRA, which contains a transitory provision making it applicable to all pending cases, governs the instant complaint. Atty. Sore-Romano breached multiple provisions. First, under Canon II, Section 1 ( Proper conduct), she was dishonest in representing to Sucgang-Perez that Dr. Lopez's services were fully paid when only PHP 15,000.00 of the PHP 50,000.00 fee had been remitted, giving the impression that the professional fee had been fully settled. Her dishonesty was bolstered by her blatant disregard of Sucgang-Perez's efforts to clarify the partial payment. Second, under Canon IV, Sections 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Competence and Diligence), she was negligent in handling the case: she delayed filing the petition for over eight months without justification, filed a fatally defective petition that was dismissed outright for lack of verification and documentary evidence in violation of Rule 7, Section 6 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, and failed to seasonably respond to the client's requests for updates or to inform her of the dismissal. Third, she willfully disobeyed IBP orders on three separate occasions—failing to file an answer, attend the mandatory conference, and submit a position paper. These constituted four infractions from four independent acts, each warranting a separate penalty.

• Proper Penalties: Canon VI, Section 40 provides that when a respondent is found liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding, separate penalties shall be imposed for each offense. Two aggravating circumstances were present: (1) a previous administrative infraction in Hamlin vs. Atty. Sore-Romano, where she was suspended for three months, and (2) 15 years in the practice of law. Under Canon VI, Section 39, when aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, penalties not exceeding double the maximum may be imposed. For simple dishonesty (Canon VI, Section 34(d)), a less serious offense normally punishable by one to six months suspension or PHP 35,000.00 to PHP 100,000.00, the penalty was doubled to one year suspension and PHP 200,000.00 fine. For simple negligence (Canon VI, Section 34(b)), the same doubled penalty was imposed. For gross negligence resulting in deprivation of the client's day in court (Canon VI, Section 33(d)), a serious offense, the delays and defective pleading stemmed from the same act of filing the petition, so respondent was liable for two counts but meted a singular penalty for the most serious offense—two years suspension and PHP 210,000.00 fine, following Bratschi vs. Atty. Peneyra. For disobedience to IBP orders (Canon VI, Section 34(c)), the penalty was doubled to one year suspension and PHP 200,000.00 fine. The aggregate was five years suspension and PHP 810,000.00 in fines.

• Refund of Acceptance Fee: The Court disagreed with the IBP Board's ruling that no refund was warranted because legal services had been rendered. Drawing on Ignacio vs. Atty. Alviar, the Court distinguished acceptance fee as compensation for the opportunity cost of being precluded from handling opposing party's cases, not measured by the nature and extent of legal services rendered. The Proposal and Acknowledgment Receipt treated the PHP 203,000.00 as full payment for filing and handling the case, and the parties agreed that Dr. Lopez's fee would be deducted from that amount. Since Atty. Sore-Romano failed to remit the doctor's payment in full, she must reimburse Sucgang-Perez the outstanding balance of PHP 35,000.00, earning 6% interest per annum from receipt of the Decision until fully paid, to be returned within three months pursuant to Canon VI, Section 41.

• Penalty for Multiple Offenses under the CPRA — Under Canon VI, Section 40, when a respondent lawyer is found liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense. If a single act or omission gives rise to more than one offense, the respondent is still liable for all offenses but is meted only the appropriate penalty for the most serious offense. Should the aggregate of imposed penalties exceed five years suspension or PHP 1,000,000.00 in fines, the respondent may, in the Court's discretion, be meted the penalty of disbarment. In this case, four separate acts gave rise to four distinct offenses, each warranting a separate penalty.

• Aggravating Circumstances in Imposition of Penalties — Under Canon VI, Section 39, when one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Court may impose penalties of suspension or fine not exceeding double the maximum prescribed. Aggravating circumstances recognized under Canon VI, Section 38(b) include previous administrative infractions and the number of years in the practice of law. Here, both were present—a prior three-month suspension in Hamlin vs. Atty. Sore-Romano and 15 years of practice—justifying the doubling of penalties for each less serious offense.

• Nature of Acceptance Fee — Acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for mere acceptance of the case, indemnifying the opportunity cost of being precluded from handling the opposing party's cases based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Since acceptance fee compensates only for lost opportunity, it is not measured by the nature and extent of legal services rendered. Where the acceptance fee includes third-party costs such as a psychologist's professional fee and the lawyer fails to remit full payment, the lawyer must reimburse the unpaid balance to the client.

• Fiduciary Nature of Lawyer-Client Relationship — Under Canon III, Section 3 of the CPRA, the lawyer-client relationship is of the highest fiduciary character, founded on the confidence reposed by the client on the lawyer. A lawyer is expected to fully advocate for the client's cause and safeguard the client's rights, consistent with the fiduciary nature of the relationship.

• "If the respondent is found liable for more than one (1) of offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense. Should the aggregate of the imposed penalties exceed five (5) years of suspension from the practice of law or [PHP]1,000,000.00 in fines, the respondent may, in the discretion of the Supreme Court, be meted with the penalty of disbarment." — This is the text of Canon VI, Section 40 of the CPRA, the controlling provision under which the Court imposed separate penalties for each of respondent's four distinct infractions.

• "Acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for mere acceptance of the case. The rationale for the fee is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. The opportunity cost of mere acceptance is thus indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. However, since acceptance fee compensates the lawyer only for lost opportunity, the same is not measured by the nature and extent of the legal services rendered." — This passage, quoting Ignacio vs. Atty. Alviar, defines the canonical formulation of acceptance fee and provided the basis for ordering partial refund of the amount corresponding to the psychologist's unpaid balance.

• "A lawyer-client relationship is of the highest fiduciary character. As a trust relation, it is essential that the engagement is founded on the confidence reposed by the client on the lawyer." — This is the text of Canon III, Section 3 of the CPRA, invoked by the Court to emphasize the fiduciary standard against which respondent's conduct was measured.

• Bihag vs. Atty. Era, 916 Phil. 174 (2021) — Followed for the definition of dishonest and deceitful conduct. The Court quoted this case's formulation of "dishonest" as having the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray, and "deceitful" as having the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, to establish that respondent's misrepresentation about full payment to Dr. Lopez constituted simple dishonesty.

• Hamlin vs. Atty. Sore-Romano, A.C. No. 12728, October 13, 2021 — Cited as a previous administrative infraction constituting an aggravating circumstance. Respondent had previously been suspended for three months for violations of Canon 1-A, Canon 1.01, Canon 16, and Canon 17 of the CPR, which the Court treated as an aggravating circumstance under Canon VI, Section 38(b)(1) of the CPRA.

• Bratschi vs. Atty. Peneyra, A.C. No. 11863, August 1, 2023 — Followed as guidance for penalty imposition on gross negligence. The Court in Bratschi explained that gross negligence and abandonment of a client's cause in a civil case calls for one year suspension, but imposed two years due to a previous CPR violation. The Court applied the same reasoning here, imposing two years suspension for gross negligence.

• Ignacio vs. Atty. Alviar, 813 Phil. 782 (2017) — Followed for the distinction between attorney's fee and acceptance fee. The Court relied on this case's explication that acceptance fee compensates only for lost opportunity and is not measured by the nature and extent of legal services rendered, as the basis for ordering partial refund of the acceptance fee.

• Canon II, Section 1, CPRA (Proper Conduct) — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to find respondent liable for simple dishonesty when she misrepresented to the client that the psychologist's fee had been fully paid.

• Canon IV, Sections 1, 3, 4, and 6, CPRA (Competence and Diligence) — Require a lawyer to provide competent, efficient, and conscientious legal service; to diligently and seasonably act on legal matters; to observe diligence and not cause delay; and to regularly inform the client of the status of the matter. Applied to find respondent negligent for delayed filing, filing a defective petition, and failing to update the client on the case status and dismissal.

• Canon VI, Section 33(d), CPRA (Gross Negligence — Serious Offense) — Classifies gross negligence in the performance of duty as a serious offense. Applied where respondent's filing of a procedurally defective petition resulted in outright dismissal, depriving the client of her day in court.

• Canon VI, Section 34(b), (c), (d), CPRA (Less Serious Offenses) — Classify simple negligence, willful disobedience of IBP orders, and simple dishonesty as less serious offenses. Applied to three of respondent's four infractions.

• Canon VI, Section 37, CPRA (Sanctions) — Prescribes the range of sanctions for less serious offenses (one to six months suspension or PHP 35,000.00 to PHP 100,000.00 fine, or a combination) and serious offenses (disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission, fine of PHP 100,000.00, or a combination).

• Canon VI, Section 39, CPRA (Manner of Imposition) — Authorizes penalties not exceeding double the maximum when aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present. Applied to double the penalties for each of respondent's less serious offenses.

• Canon VI, Section 40, CPRA (Penalty for Multiple Offenses) — Requires separate penalties for each offense arising from separate acts or omissions; where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses, only the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed. Applied to impose four separate penalties aggregating five years suspension and PHP 810,000.00.

• Canon VI, Section 41, CPRA (Payment of Fines and Return of Client's Money) — Requires payment of fines and return of client's money within three months from receipt of the decision, on pain of indirect contempt. Applied to set the deadline for payment of the fine and return of PHP 35,000.00.

• Canon III, Section 3, CPRA (Lawyer-Client Relationship) — Declares the lawyer-client relationship to be of the highest fiduciary character. Invoked as the overarching standard governing respondent's obligations to her client.

• Rule 7, Section 6, 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure — Requires every pleading stating a party's claims or defenses to include the names of witnesses, summary of testimonies with attached judicial affidavits, and documentary and object evidence. Violation of this rule was the procedural ground for the RTC's outright dismissal of the petition, which the Court attributed to respondent's negligence.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Rosario and Singh, JJ., were on official business.