A.C. No. 7504 - VIRGINIA VILLAFLORES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that herein respondent be declared guilty of gross negligence in failing to file the required appellants brief for which act she should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Also, it is recommended that the respondent be ordered to return the amount of P22,000.00 that she received from the complainant. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution [9] No. XVII-2006-584 dated 15 December 2006, approving with modification the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thus: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification , the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondents gross negligence in failing to file the required appellants brief, Atty. Sinamar E. Limos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with Warning that a repetition of similar conduct will be dealt with more severely and ORDERED TO RETURN the amount of P22,000.00 she received from complainant. The core issue in this administrative case is whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants case as would warrant disciplinary action. After a careful review of the records and evidence, we find no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and, thus, sustain the same. Respondents conduct in failing to file the appellants brief for complainant before the Court of Appeals falls below the standards exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their clients cause. The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained. [10] To establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession. [11] It must be noted that as early as 8 September 2004, respondent already agreed to take on complainants case, receiving from the latter partial payment of her acceptance fee and the entire records of complainants case. The very next day, 9 September 2004, complainant paid the balance of respondents acceptance fee. Respondent admitted her receipt of P20,000.00 as acceptance fee for the legal services she is to render to complainant and P2,000.00 for the miscellaneous expenses she is to incur in handling the case, and the subsequent execution of the employment contract between her and complainant. Hence, it can be said that as early as 8 September 2004, respondents rendition of legal services to complainant had commenced, and from then on, she should start protecting the complainants interests. The employment contract between respondent and complainant already existed as of 8 September 2004, although it wa