Attorney Suspended 3 Years for Neglect and Misrepresentation in Adoption Case

The Supreme Court has reminded all lawyers that accepting a client's money creates a binding duty of diligence, candor, and fidelity—and that betraying that trust carries serious consequences. In Nery v. Sampana (A.C. No. 10196, September 9, 2014), the Court suspended a lawyer for three years after he collected fees for an adoption petition he never filed, then falsely assured his client that the case was already in court. The ruling underscores that a lawyer who neglects a client's cause and misrepresents the status of a case commits malpractice punishable by suspension, not merely a refund.

The Facts of the Case

In June 2008, Melody R. Nery engaged Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana to handle two matters: the annulment of her marriage and her adoption by an alien adopter. The annulment was eventually granted, with Nery paying P200,000.00. For the adoption, Sampana suggested a scheme involving her aunt and gave Nery a blurred copy of a marriage contract to use. Nery paid Sampana P100,000.00 in installments between September and November 2008, without asking for receipts because she trusted him.

On February 14, 2009, Sampana texted Nery that he had already filed the petition for adoption and that it had been published. He later told her a hearing was set for March 5, 2010, and then reset to March 12, 2010, claiming her presence was unnecessary because the hearing was only jurisdictional.

When Nery inquired at Branch 11 of the Malolos, Bulacan court on March 11, 2010, she discovered no petition had ever been filed. She demanded reimbursement of her P100,000.00, but Sampana insisted on deducting a P12,000.00 filing fee—even though no petition existed. He repeatedly ignored her demands for the refund.

The Issue

The central question was whether Sampana should be held administratively liable for failing to file the petition for adoption despite receiving his fees, and for misleading Nery into believing the petition was already filed and set for hearing.

The Ruling

The Court found Sampana guilty of malpractice. It held that acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to a duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance.

The Court cited the Code of Professional Responsibility:

• Canon 15 requires candor, fairness, and loyalty in all dealings with clients.
• Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 require a lawyer to hold client funds in trust and deliver them upon demand.
• Canon 17 demands fidelity to the client's cause.
• Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 prohibit neglecting a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer.

Sampana admitted receiving a "package fee" for both cases but unjustifiably failed to file the adoption petition. His excuse—waiting for a certification from the Japanese Embassy—was rejected as disingenuous and flimsy. The Court noted that under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, the certification requirement is waived in the specific arrangement Sampana himself had suggested: where the alien adopter jointly adopts a relative of his or her Filipino spouse. The exact section number of this provision is not available in the library consulted for this article.

The Court also noted that Sampana's failure to return the funds upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he appropriated them for his own use, violating the trust reposed in him.

This was not Sampana's first administrative offense. The Court noted a prior administrative case against him involving an unethical double sale of a parcel of land, for which he had already been suspended for one year. The docket number of that prior case is not available in the library consulted for this article. Considering this prior offense and the seriousness of his misconduct, the Court increased the recommended penalty from three months to three years of suspension, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. He was also ordered to return P100,000.00 to Nery, with 12% interest per annum from November 17, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum thereafter until fully paid.

Practical Takeaways

• Accepting fees creates a duty. Once a lawyer takes a client's money, the attorney-client relationship is formed, and the lawyer must act with full diligence and competence.
• Never misrepresent case status. A lawyer's false assurance that a petition was filed—when it was not—is a serious ethical violation, not a mere misunderstanding.
• Client funds must be returned on demand. Failure to return money held for a client upon demand raises a presumption of misappropriation.
• Prior offenses matter. The Court considers a lawyer's disciplinary history in determining the penalty, and repeat offenders face harsher sanctions.
• Clients should keep records. Requesting receipts and tracking the status of one's case can protect against neglect and misrepresentation.

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