G.R. No. A.C. No. 10196, September 9, 2014
MELODY R. NERY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Melody R. Nery engaged the services of respondent Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana in June 2008 for the annulment of her marriage and for her adoption by an alien adopter. The annulment was granted, and Nery paid Sampana ₱200,000.00. For the adoption, Sampana suggested that the alien adopter be married to a close relative of Nery to facilitate the process, and Nery provided a blurred marriage contract. Nery paid Sampana ₱100,000.00 in installments for the adoption case, without receipts, trusting him. On February 14, 2009, Sampana informed Nery via text message that the petition for adoption had been filed and published, and later stated hearings were set for March 5 and 12, 2010, in Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan. When Nery inquired at the court on March 11, 2010, she discovered no such petition had been filed. Confronted, Sampana agreed to reimburse the ₱100,000.00 but insisted on deducting ₱12,000.00 for filing fees, which Nery contested. Despite demands, Sampana failed to refund the money. In the IBP proceedings, Sampana admitted receiving a “one package fee” for both cases but claimed he did not file the adoption petition because he was waiting for a certification from the Japanese Embassy. He denied misleading Nery, suggesting she confused the adoption case with the annulment proceedings, and offered to refund the amount after deducting his fees and expenses.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file the petition for adoption despite receiving legal fees, misleading the complainant about its status, and failing to return the money upon demand.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana guilty of malpractice and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court held that acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship, imposing duties of candor, fairness, loyalty, competence, and diligence. Sampana’s failure to file the petition for adoption, despite receiving payment, constituted neglect of a legal matter under Canon 18, Rule 18.03. His excuse of awaiting a certification was disingenuous, as the suggested adoption under the Domestic Adoption Act waived such certification. By misleading Nery about the filing and status of the petition, Sampana violated Canons 15 and 17. His failure to return the funds upon demand breached Canon 16, Rule 16.03, giving rise to a presumption of misappropriation. Considering Sampana’s prior disciplinary record (suspended for one year in Lising v. Sampana), the Court increased the penalty from the IBP-recommended three months suspension to suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years, with a stern warning against repetition. The Court also ordered Sampana to return ₱100,000.00 to Nery with 12% interest per annum from November 17, 2008, until June 30, 2013, and 6% interest per annum from July 1, 2013, until fully paid.