"x x x.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause[1]. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance[2] A lawyer also owes it to the court, their clients, and other lawyers to be candid and fair[3]. Thus, the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states:
CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x.
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
In the present case, Sampana admitted that he received “one package fee” for both cases of annulment and adoption. Despite receiving this fee, he unjustifiably failed to file the petition for adoption and fell short of his duty of due diligence and candor to his client. Sampana’s proffered excuse of waiting for the certification before filing the petition for adoption is disingenuous and flimsy. In his position paper, he suggested to Nery that if the alien adopter would be married to her close relative, the intended adoption could be possible. Under the Domestic Adoption Act provision, which Sampana suggested, the alien adopter can jointly adopt a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of his/her Filipino spouse, and the certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt is waived[4].
Having no valid reason not to file the petition for adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the status of the petition. He then conceded that the annulment case overshadowed the petition for adoption. Verily, Sampana neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. He even kept the money given him, in violation of the Code’s mandate to deliver the client’s funds upon demand. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the legal profession[5].
This is not the first administrative case filed against Sampana. In Lising v. Sampana[6], we already found Sampana guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his unethical and illegal act relative to his double sale of a parcel of land. We imposed upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year and warned him that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
In Rollon v. Naraval[7], we imposed upon the respondent therein the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years for failing to render any legal service after receiving the filing and partial service fee. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment and the previous rulings of this Court, we deem it proper to increase the penalty for Sampana’s malpractice and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility to suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. We also ORDER Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana to RETURN to complainant Melody R. Nery the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), with 12% interest per annum from the time of his receipt of the full amount of money on 17 November 2008 until 30 June 2013, then 6% interest per annum from 1 July 2013 until fully paid.
Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant to be included in the records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC, A.C. No. 10196, September 09, 2014, MELODY R. NERY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA, RESPONDENT.
x x x."
