G.R. No. A.C. No. 10938, October 08, 2019
Editha M. Francia, Complainant, v. Atty. Quirino Sagario, Respondent.

FACTS

In 2009, complainant Editha M. Francia contracted the services of respondent Atty. Quirino Sagario to handle the annulment of her marriage, agreeing on a total fee of PhP 70,000.00. Complainant made payments totaling PhP 57,000.00: PhP 30,000.00 on December 14, 2009 (with acknowledgment receipt), PhP 20,000.00 on January 20, 2010 (with acknowledgment receipt), and PhP 7,000.00 on February 6, 2010 (no receipt issued, as Atty. Sagario stated it would cover filing fees and sheriff’s expenses). After receiving the payments, Atty. Sagario avoided complainant’s calls, canceled appointments, and communicated only via text messages. He failed to file the petition for annulment despite assurances. Upon complainant’s demand for a refund after six months of inaction, Atty. Sagario promised to return the money but failed to do so. Complainant filed a small claims case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 38. Atty. Sagario did not appear at hearings despite service of summons. On October 19, 2010, the MeTC ordered him to pay complainant PhP 50,000.00 with 12% annual interest from August 26, 2010. Atty. Sagario did not comply with the MeTC decision, prompting complainant to file this administrative case with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Quirino Sagario is administratively liable for professional misconduct for failing to file the petition for annulment despite receiving legal fees and for not returning the money upon demand.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Quirino Sagario is guilty of professional misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Atty. Sagario violated:
1. Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him, as he failed to render any legal service despite receiving PhP 57,000.00.
2. Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the CPR by not accounting for and failing to return the client’s money upon demand.
3. Canon 17 of the CPR by breaching his fiduciary duty and trust as a lawyer.
His failure to answer the complaint before the MeTC, appear at hearings, or respond to the IBP proceedings demonstrated disrespect for lawful orders and his oath of office. The Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, effective immediately, with a stern warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely. The Court refrained from further discussion on the monetary aspect due to the MeTC’s existing decision.