A.C. No. 13959 [Formerly CBD Case No. 22-6628] - MARIA CHARISSE ANN SUCGANG-PEREZ,* COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MA. AURORA PAREDES SORE-ROMANO,**.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the IBP required the parties to submit their respective position papers. [26] As with previous instances, Atty. Sore-Romano did not heed the instruction to file her position paper. [27] In due course, Investigating Commissioner Christian E. Chan (Commissioner Chan) of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), rendered a Report and Recommendation [28] finding Atty. Sore-Romano guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 [29] , Canon 17 [30] , and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 [31] of the CPR, for which she should be meted the penalty of three years suspension from practice of law as well as a fine of PHP 5,000.00 for her refusal to obey the orders of the IBP. Commissioner Chan also recommended that the acceptance fee in the amount of PHP 203,000.00 be returned to Sucgang-Perez. Ensuingly, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) issued a Notice of Resolution [32] adopting and approving the recommendation that Atty. Sore-­Romano be suspended from the practice of law for three years. The fine was increased to PHP 20,000.00 in view of her failure not only to submit the required answer, mandatory conference brief, position paper, but also to attend the mandatory conference. Notably, the IBP Board set aside the recommendation to return the acceptance fee on the ground that legal services were already rendered by Atty. Sore-Romano. Issue Discernibly, the jugular issue before this Court is whether Atty. Sore­-Romano's acts warrant her disbarment from the practice of law. The Court's Ruling An assiduous study of the records of the case yields to the conclusion that Atty. Sore-Romano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). However, a further modification of the recommended penalties is in order. Incipiently, the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability [33] (CPRA) governs the ethical standards imposed upon Filipino lawyers. This new code is applicable to all pending cases such as the instant complaint. [34] As will be discussed in seriatim , the Court is in accord with the IBP's finding that Atty. Sore-Romano was remiss in performing her duties to proficiently advocate for Sucgang-Perez's cause. Invariably, Atty. Sore­-Romano breached multiple provisions of the CPRA. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR is reproduced as Canon II, Section 1 of the CPRA, viz.: CANON II PROPRIETY A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Section 1. Proper conduct . A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. In Bihag v. Atty. Era , [35] the Court succinctly described dishonest and deceitful acts, thusly: To be "dishonest" means having the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be untrustworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity,