When Lawyers Fail Clients: The Sore-Romano Disbarment Case Explained

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Sucgang-Perez v. Atty. Sore-Romano (A.C. No. 13959, November 26, 2024) sends a clear message: lawyers who neglect their clients and mislead them will face severe consequences. The case, which resulted in a five-year suspension and an ₱810,000 fine, highlights the ethical standards every Filipino lawyer must uphold—and what clients can do when those standards are breached.

The Story Behind the Complaint

The case began when Maria Charisse Ann Sucgang-Perez sought legal help for a marriage annulment after suffering abuse from her husband. She found Atty. Ma. Aurora Paredes Sore-Romano online, who presented herself as a family law expert with over 15 years of experience.

Sucgang-Perez paid ₱203,000 as an acceptance fee, which was supposed to cover legal services, including the engagement of a clinical psychologist for a psychological evaluation. But problems soon emerged:

• The psychologist, Dr. Arnulfo Lopez, was only partially paid—₱15,000 of the ₱50,000 fee—despite the lawyer's assurances of full payment
• The petition for annulment was filed only after months of delays and repeated follow-ups
• When finally filed, the petition was so defective that the trial court dismissed it outright
• The lawyer failed to inform her client about the dismissal
• She ignored multiple communications and even orders from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

The Ethical Violations

The Supreme Court found Atty. Sore-Romano guilty of four distinct offenses under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which replaced the older Code of Professional Responsibility:

1. Simple dishonesty. The lawyer misled her client into believing the psychologist had been fully paid when she had only remitted a partial amount. The Court defined dishonest conduct as having "the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray."

2. Simple negligence. She failed to update her client about the case status and only responded when the client threatened to terminate her services. The CPRA requires lawyers to "regularly inform the client of the status and the result of the matter undertaken."

3. Two counts of gross negligence. The lawyer filed a procedurally defective petition that led to its outright dismissal. The petition lacked proper verification and failed to attach required documentary evidence and judicial affidavits, violating Rule 7, Section 6 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure. This negligence deprived the client of her day in court.

4. Disobedience to IBP orders. She failed to file her answer, attend the mandatory conference, and submit her position paper despite being directed to do so.

The Penalties Imposed

Because the lawyer committed multiple offenses from separate acts, the Court imposed separate penalties for each violation. Two aggravating circumstances were considered: a prior administrative infraction and her 15 years in practice, which meant she should have known better.

The Court ordered:

• Suspension from the practice of law for five years
• A fine of ₱810,000
• Return of ₱35,000 to the client—the unpaid balance owed to the psychologist—with 6% annual interest

The Court also clarified the difference between an acceptance fee and attorney's fees. An acceptance fee compensates the lawyer for accepting the case and the lost opportunity to represent conflicting interests. Since Atty. Sore-Romano failed to fully pay the psychologist as agreed, she had to reimburse the outstanding amount.

Practical Takeaways

• Lawyers owe clients competence, diligence, and honesty. The CPRA explicitly requires lawyers to provide "competent, efficient, and conscientious service" and to keep clients informed of case status.
• Clients have remedies for lawyer misconduct. Complaints can be filed with the IBP, which investigates and recommends penalties to the Supreme Court.
• Procedural rules matter. The 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to attach judicial affidavits and documentary evidence to their pleadings. Failure to comply can result in outright dismissal.
• Acceptance fees are not always fully refundable. Courts distinguish between fees for accepting a case and fees for actual legal services rendered. However, lawyers may be ordered to return amounts that were meant for third parties but were never paid.
• The CPRA applies to pending cases. The new code, which took effect in 2023, governs all pending and future administrative cases against lawyers.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.