View full case

SPS. JONATHAN v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS

FACTS:

Complainants-spouses Jonathan and Ester Lopez engaged the services of respondent Atty. Sinamar E. Limos as their counsel in connection with their intention to adopt a minor child. In consideration, they paid respondent the amount of P75,000.00. However, despite payment and submission of all the required documents, no adoption petition was filed during the complainants' stay in the Philippines. Complainants later received a letter from respondent requesting their appearance and testimony in court for the adoption case she purportedly filed, only to find out that the case referred to a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of another person filed by another lawyer. Complainants then withdrew their documents from respondent's custody and hired another lawyer. They demanded the return of the P75,000.00 but respondent refused, claiming that she does not return "acceptance fees." The case was filed against respondent for her various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Despite numerous directives to file a comment, respondent failed to do so. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty and recommended her suspension from the practice of law for three years and ordered her to return the P75,000.00 to the complainants. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation. The issue in this case is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent's failure to perform the legal matter entrusted to her by complainants constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

  2. Whether respondent's failure to return the legal fees paid by complainants constitutes a violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR.

  3. Whether respondent's misrepresentation to complainants regarding the status of the adoption proceeding violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

  4. Whether respondent's failure to comply with court directives and the IBP's orders violates Canon 11 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR.

  5. Whether the respondent is guilty of violating various rules and canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  6. Whether the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law.

  7. Whether the respondent should be ordered to return the legal fee received from the complainants.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that respondent's failure to perform the legal matter entrusted to her by complainants constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. Once a lawyer accepts a client's cause, they are duty-bound to serve the client with competence and attend to their cause with diligence.

  2. The Court ruled that respondent's failure to return the legal fees paid by complainants constitutes a violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR. The relationship between a lawyer and a client is fiduciary, and lawyers are required to hold in trust the money or property received on behalf of a client and to account for it.

  3. The Court ruled that respondent's misrepresentation to complainants regarding the status of the adoption proceeding violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. Respondent's deceitful acts go against the duty to uphold the constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

  4. The Court ruled that respondent's failure to comply with court directives and the IBP's orders violates Canon 11 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR. Lawyers are required to observe respect due to the courts and judicial officers and should assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Unduly delaying a case or disregarding court processes is a violation of professional conduct.

  5. The respondent is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, Rule 12.04 of Canon 12, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  6. The respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective upon the finality of the decision.

  7. The respondent is ordered to return the legal fees received from the complainants in the amount of P75,000.00, with legal interest, within ninety (90) days from the finality of the decision. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers must serve their clients with competence, diligence, and care, and they have a duty to attend to the legal matters entrusted to them. (Rule 18.03, Canon 18)

  • Lawyers have a fiduciary duty to hold in trust all money and property received for or from their clients and must account for it. (Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16)

  • Lawyers must uphold the constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes. They must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. (Rule 1.01, Canon 1)

  • Lawyers must observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers and should assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They must not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes. (Canon 11 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12)

  • Lawyers have a duty to perform their undertakings under their retainership agreements with their clients and to return money or property entrusted to them (Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin).

  • Lawyers who fail to return money given to them by their clients for legal services they did not perform may be subjected to disciplinary action (Jinon v. Jiz).

  • Lawyers may be suspended for failing to handle legal matters entrusted to them, failing to return legal fees, and misrepresenting their qualifications (Agot v. Rivera).

  • In disciplinary proceedings, lawyers may be ordered to return money received from clients if the money is part of their legal fees and is intrinsically linked to their professional engagement.