The Supreme Court has penalized Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), including dishonesty and negligence in handling a client’s case for annulment of marriage. The Court’s decision underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers, particularly in their fiduciary duty to clients. This ruling highlights the importance of competence, diligence, and honesty in legal practice, and the serious consequences that can arise from failing to meet these standards. Lawyers must ensure they are up-to-date with legal developments, manage client funds responsibly, and communicate effectively with their clients to avoid disciplinary actions.

Broken Promises: When Legal Expertise Fails to Deliver Justice

Maria Charisse Ann Sucgang-Perez sought legal recourse from Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano after suffering abuse from her husband, leading her to file an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage. Sucgang-Perez, impressed by Atty. Sore-Romano’s website showcasing her expertise in family law and annulment proceedings, engaged her services. However, the professional relationship quickly deteriorated due to alleged neglect, misrepresentation, and failure to act with due diligence. This case examines whether Atty. Sore-Romano’s actions constitute a breach of her ethical obligations as a lawyer, warranting disciplinary measures.

Sucgang-Perez paid Atty. Sore-Romano PHP 203,000.00, intended to cover the initial case study, drafting of pleadings, engagement of a clinical psychologist, and other necessary legal services. After payment, Sucgang-Perez complied with the request for pertinent documents and underwent psychological evaluation with Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez. However, she discovered that Dr. Lopez’s professional fee remained unpaid, despite her agreement with Atty. Sore-Romano that it would be covered. The situation worsened as communication with Atty. Sore-Romano became sporadic, with updates provided by other members of the firm, leading to inconsistencies and delays in the filing of the petition.

Further complicating matters, the petition was eventually filed but subsequently dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) due to procedural infirmities, including the lack of proper verification and documentary evidence. Sucgang-Perez also discovered that the psychological evaluation report attached to the petition remained unsigned due to an outstanding balance owed to Dr. Lopez. These issues prompted Sucgang-Perez to terminate Atty. Sore-Romano’s services and demand a full refund of the acceptance fee, which went unheeded, leading her to file a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP’s investigation led to a recommendation of suspension and a fine, which the Supreme Court later modified, emphasizing the gravity of Atty. Sore-Romano’s misconduct.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized that the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) governs the ethical standards of Filipino lawyers and is applicable to all pending cases. The Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that Atty. Sore-Romano failed in her duties to advocate proficiently for Sucgang-Perez’s cause, violating multiple provisions of the CPRA. Specifically, the Court cited Canon II, Section 1 of the CPRA, which mirrors Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR, stating that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

CANON II
PROPRIETY

A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior.

Section 1. Proper conduct. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

The Court highlighted the dishonest nature of Atty. Sore-Romano’s actions regarding Dr. Lopez’s unpaid professional fees. Despite receiving PHP 203,000.00 from Sucgang-Perez, Atty. Sore-Romano failed to fully compensate Dr. Lopez for his services, with an outstanding balance of PHP 35,000.00 remaining. There was no evidence to show that Atty. Sore-Romano communicated this discrepancy to Sucgang-Perez; instead, she gave the impression that the psychologist’s fee had been fully settled. This lack of transparency and disregard for Sucgang-Perez’s attempts to clarify the matter further underscored the dishonesty.

The Court further determined that Atty. Sore-Romano was negligent in handling Sucgang-Perez’s case, violating Canon IV, Sections 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the CPRA, which mandate competence, diligence, and conscientious service. Atty. Sore-Romano’s negligence was evident in multiple instances. First, the significant delay in filing the petition before the trial court, despite Sucgang-Perez completing her psychological evaluation on June 4, 2020, and engaging Atty. Sore-Romano’s services in June 2019. The petition was only filed on February 9, 2021, without any reasonable justification for the delay, violating Canon IV, Section 3 of the CPRA, which requires lawyers to act diligently and seasonably on any legal matter entrusted to them.

CANON IV
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

A lawyer professionally handling a client’s cause shall, to the best of his or her ability, observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or issues involved, and whether for a fee or pro bono.

. . . .

SECTION 1. Competent, efficient and conscientious service. — A lawyer shall provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and conscientious. A lawyer shall be thorough in research, preparation, and application of the legal knowledge and skills necessary for an engagement.

. . . .

SECTION 3. Diligence and punctuality. — A lawyer shall diligently and seasonably act on any legal matter entrusted by a client.

A lawyer shall be punctual in all appearances, submissions of pleadings and documents before any court, tribunal or other government agency, and all matters professionally referred by the client, including meetings and other commitments.

SECTION 4. Diligence in all undertakings. — A lawyer shall observe diligence in all professional undertakings, and shall not cause or occasion delay in any legal matter before any court, tribunal, or other agency.

A lawyer shall appear for trial adequately familiar with the law, the facts of the case, and the evidence to be presented. A lawyer shall also be ready with the object and documentary evidence, as well as the judicial affidavits of the witnesses, when required by the rules or the court.

. . . .

SECTION 6. Duty to update the client. — A lawyer shall regularly inform the client of the status and the result of the matter undertaken, and any action in connection thereto, and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

Atty. Sore-Romano’s filing of a procedurally defective petition before the RTC, which led to its outright dismissal, further substantiated her violation of Canon IV, Sections 1 and 4 of the CPRA. The Court noted that the petition lacked proper verification and documentary evidence, violating Rule 7, Section 6 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This negligence could have been prevented with prudent research, considering the amendments took effect almost nine months before Sucgang-Perez’s case began. As a result, Sucgang-Perez was denied her day in court due to Atty. Sore-Romano’s carelessness.

Furthermore, Atty. Sore-Romano failed to respond to Sucgang-Perez’s repeated requests for updates on the status of her case, violating Canon IV, Section 6 of the CPRA. She also neglected to inform Sucgang-Perez about the dismissal of the petition, leaving her to discover the information herself. The Court emphasized that Atty. Sore-Romano willfully disobeyed the orders of the IBP by failing to file an answer to the complaint, attend the mandatory conference, and file her position paper. Such deliberate disobedience to the orders of the IBP in an administrative case is considered a less serious offense under the CPRA.

In determining the proper penalties, the Court considered two aggravating circumstances: Atty. Sore-Romano’s previous administrative infraction in Hamlin v. Atty. Sore-Romano, where she was suspended for three months for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and her 15 years of experience in the practice of law. Canon VI, Section 40 of the CPRA provides that when a lawyer is found liable for multiple offenses, separate penalties should be imposed for each offense. Canon VI, Section 39 allows for increased penalties when aggravating circumstances are present. Based on these considerations, the Court imposed separate penalties for each of Atty. Sore-Romano’s four infractions.

For the dishonest misrepresentation regarding Dr. Lopez’s fees, classified as simple dishonesty, Atty. Sore-Romano was suspended from the practice of law for one year and fined PHP 200,000.00. Her failure to keep Sucgang-Perez informed about the status of the case, constituting simple negligence, also resulted in a one-year suspension and a PHP 200,000.00 fine. Filing a defective pleading that resulted in the dismissal of the petition, amounting to gross negligence, led to a two-year suspension and a PHP 210,000.00 fine. Finally, for her disobedience to the orders of the IBP, Atty. Sore-Romano was suspended for one year and fined PHP 200,000.00. In total, Atty. Sore-Romano was suspended from the practice of law for five years and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 810,000.00.

Regarding the acceptance fee paid by Sucgang-Perez, the Court disagreed with the IBP Board and ruled that Atty. Sore-Romano must return a portion of it. Drawing from Ignacio v. Atty. Alviar, the Court distinguished between attorney’s fees and acceptance fees. Since Atty. Sore-Romano failed to remit the full payment to Dr. Lopez, she was ordered to reimburse Sucgang-Perez the outstanding balance of PHP 35,000.00, with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of the decision until fully paid. The amount must be returned to Sucgang-Perez within three months from receipt of the decision.

Ultimately, this case reaffirms the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship and the high standards of conduct expected from legal professionals. Lawyers must advocate fully for their clients’ causes, safeguard their rights, and uphold the laws of the land. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder of the consequences of neglecting these duties and engaging in dishonest or negligent practices.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Sore-Romano’s actions, including mismanaging client funds, neglecting the case, and disobeying IBP orders, warranted disciplinary action for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court examined whether her conduct breached ethical obligations.
What specific violations did the attorney commit?	Atty. Sore-Romano was found guilty of simple dishonesty for misrepresenting the payment status to the psychologist, simple negligence for failing to keep the client informed, gross negligence for filing a defective petition, and disobedience to orders from the IBP. These violations encompass failures in ethical conduct, diligence, and compliance.
What penalties were imposed on the attorney?	The attorney was suspended from practicing law for five years and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 810,000.00. Additionally, she was directed to return PHP 35,000.00 to the client to cover the unpaid psychologist fees.
Why was the attorney ordered to return part of the acceptance fee?	The attorney was ordered to return part of the acceptance fee because she did not fully compensate the psychologist, despite being entrusted with funds for that purpose. The Court emphasized that such funds should be managed responsibly and accounted for appropriately.
What is the significance of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)?	The CPRA sets ethical standards for lawyers, mandating honesty, competence, and diligence in serving clients. It ensures lawyers uphold the law, protect client interests, and maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and is the standard by which the court assessed the actions of Atty. Sore-Romano.
How did the attorney’s negligence affect the client?	The attorney’s negligence led to the dismissal of the client’s petition due to procedural errors, denying the client her day in court. This resulted in significant delays and the need to start the legal process anew, causing the client distress and additional expense.
What are the key takeaways for lawyers from this case?	Lawyers must maintain open communication with clients, manage funds responsibly, and stay updated with legal developments. They must adhere to ethical standards and IBP orders to avoid disciplinary actions, ensuring their practice aligns with professional expectations.
What role did the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) play in the case?	The IBP investigated the client’s complaint, found the attorney culpable of ethical violations, and recommended penalties to the Supreme Court. This underscores the IBP’s role in upholding ethical standards within the legal profession.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical and professional responsibilities incumbent upon lawyers in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of honesty, diligence, and competence in legal practice, as well as the consequences for failing to uphold these standards. Attorneys must remain vigilant in their duties to clients and the legal system to avoid disciplinary actions and maintain the integrity of the profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MARIA CHARISSE ANN SUCGANG-PEREZ VS. ATTY. MA. AURORA PAREDES SORE-ROMANO, G.R No. 69796, November 26, 2024