G.R. No. A.C. No. 13959, November 26, 2024
Maria Charisse Ann Sucgang-Perez, Complainant, vs. Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maria Charisse Ann Sucgang-Perez engaged the services of respondent Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage. Impressed by Atty. Sore-Romano’s online credentials as a family law expert, Sucgang-Perez paid an acceptance fee of PHP 203,000.00 on June 8, 2019, which was acknowledged as full payment for handling the case. The agreed services included case study, drafting of pleadings, and engagement of a clinical psychologist, Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez. Sucgang-Perez completed her psychological evaluation on June 4, 2020, but later discovered that Dr. Lopez’s professional fee was not fully paid, with only PHP 15,000.00 settled and a balance of PHP 35,000.00 outstanding. Despite follow-ups, communication from Atty. Sore-Romano became sporadic. A staff member, Emilio Martin A. Borja, and later Atty. Gerard Gaerlan, were assigned to assist, but delays persisted. Atty. Gaerlan informed Sucgang-Perez that the petition remained unsigned and annexes were in disarray, and revealed that other clients had similar complaints against Atty. Sore-Romano. On February 9, 2021, Atty. Sore-Romano personally went to Sucgang-Perez’s residence, signed a Memorandum of Agreement promising to file the petition that day, and used Sucgang-Perez’s resources (printer, paper, and food) to complete it. The petition was filed but was dismissed outright by the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City on March 1, 2021, due to procedural infirmities, including lack of proper verification and required documentary evidence under the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure. The attached psychological report was also unsigned. Sucgang-Perez terminated Atty. Sore-Romano’s services and demanded a full refund of the acceptance fee, which was ignored. She filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Atty. Sore-Romano failed to file an answer, attend mandatory conferences, or submit a position paper before the IBP. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found her guilty and recommended a three-year suspension, a PHP 5,000.00 fine, and refund of the acceptance fee. The IBP Board of Governors increased the fine to PHP 20,000.00 but set aside the refund recommendation, reasoning that legal services had been rendered.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be disciplined accordingly.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Sore-Romano guilty of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court modified the IBP’s resolution, imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law, ordering the refund of the PHP 203,000.00 acceptance fee to complainant Sucgang-Perez, and imposing a fine of PHP 20,000.00 for failure to comply with IBP directives.
The Court held that Atty. Sore-Romano breached her duties as a lawyer under the CPR. Specifically:
1. Canon 18, Rule 18.03 (Negligence and Competence): She failed to serve her client with competence and diligence. The dismissal of the petition due to procedural defects under the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure demonstrated her lack of updated knowledge and skill, especially given her claimed expertise in family law. Her negligence included filing an incomplete petition lacking verification and required evidence.
2. Canon 17 (Fidelity to Client’s Cause): She abandoned her client’s case by failing to communicate updates, not fully paying the psychologist, and delegating work without proper supervision, thereby violating her duty of fidelity.
3. Canon 16, Rule 16.01 (Handling Client’s Funds): She misappropriated funds intended for the psychologist’s fee, paying only a portion and leaving a balance, and used the client’s personal resources to complete the petition, indicating misuse of the acceptance fee.
4. Canon 11, Rule 11.03 (Maintaining Client’s Confidence): Her delegation to staff and another lawyer without ensuring quality control and her overall neglect breached the trust reposed in her.
5. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (Upholding the Law): Her actions, including ignoring IBP proceedings, undermined the integrity of the legal profession.
The Court emphasized that the attorney-client relationship is fiduciary and requires utmost good faith. Atty. Sore-Romano’s failure to respond to the IBP’s notices constituted contempt and aggravated her misconduct. The refund of the acceptance fee was ordered because the services rendered were substandard and resulted in dismissal, depriving the client of the benefit of the agreement. The two-year suspension was deemed appropriate considering the gravity of her violations, which fell under the “gross negligence” classification under the 2023 Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The fine of PHP 20,000.00 was sustained for her disregard of IBP directives.