Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

EN BANC
[A.C. No. 11246. June 14, 2016.]
ARNOLD PACAO , complainant, vs. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS , respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM : p
Before this Court is a veri ed complaint 1 led on November 4, 2011 by Arnold

Pacao (complainant), seeking the disbarment of Atty. Sinamar Limos (Atty. Limos) for
conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
The Facts
Sometime in March 2008, complainant's wife Mariadel Pacao, former vault
custodian of BHF Pawnshop (BHF) branch in Mandaluyong City, was charged with
quali ed theft by BHF. At the preliminary investigation, Atty. Limos appeared as counsel
for BHF. Thereafter, the case was led before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong
City. 2
To buy peace, the complainant initiated negotiation with BHF, through Atty.
Limos, for a possible settlement. A meeting was then arranged between the
complainant and Atty. Limos, where the latter represented that she was duly authorized
by BHF. After a series of negotiations, Atty. Limos relayed that BHF is demanding the
sum of P530,000.00 to be paid in full or by installments. Further negotiation led to an
agreement whereby the complainant would pay an initial amount of P200,000.00 to be
entrusted to Atty. Limos, who will then deliver to the complainant a signed af davit of
desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint motion to approve compromise
agreement for filing with the court. 3
On October 29, 2009, the complainant gave the initial amount of P200,000.00 to
Atty. Limos, who in turn, signed an Acknowledgment Receipt 4 recognizing her
undertakings as counsel of BHF. However, Atty. Limos failed to meet the terms of their
agreement. Notwithstanding such failure, Atty. Limos still sought to get from the
complainant the next installment amount of their purported agreement, but the latter
refused. 5
Thereafter, in June 2010, the complainant met BHF's representative, Camille
Bonifacio, who informed him that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF's counsel and was not
authorized to negotiate any settlement nor receive any money in behalf of BHF. The
complainant also learned that BHF did not receive the P200,000.00 initial payment that
he gave to Atty. Limos. 6
This prompted the complainant to send a demand letter 7 to Atty. Limos to
return the P200,000.00 initial settlement payment, but the latter failed and refused to
do so. 8
The complainant then led a disbarment case against Atty. Limos before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The IBP-
CBD required Atty. Limos to le an answer but she did not le any responsive pleading.
9 A mandatory conference was then set on March 1 and 29, 2012, and April 19, 2012,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
but Atty. Limos failed to attend. Thereafter, the IBP-CBD ordered the parties to submit
their position paper, but once again, Atty. Limos did not bother to submit her position
paper.
On May 5, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment
of Atty. Limos. 10 The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to
prove that Atty. Limos committed fraud and practiced deceit on the complainant to the
latter's prejudice by concealing or omitting to disclose the material fact that she no
longer had the authority to negotiate and conclude a settlement for and on behalf of
BHF, nor was authorized to receive the P200,000.00 from the complainant. Atty. Limos
was likewise ordered to return to the complainant the full amount of P200,000.00 with
interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of her receipt of the said
amount to the date of her return of the full amount. 11
In a Resolution 12 dated April 19, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Investigating Commissioner's report and recommendation.
On March 8, 2016, the IBP transmitted the notice of the resolution and the case
records to the Court for nal action pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. 13 As
per veri cation of the Court, neither party has led a motion for reconsideration or a
petition for review thereafter. cSEDTC
The Issue
Whether or not the instant disbarment complaint constitutes a suf cient basis to
disbar Atty. Limos from the practice of law? 14
Ruling of the Court
To begin with, the Court notes that this is not the rst time that Atty. Limos is
facing an administrative case, for she had already been twice suspended from the
practice of law, by this Court, for three months each in Villa ores v. Atty. Limos 15 and
Wilkie v. Atty. Limos . 16 In Villa ores, Atty. Limos received attorney's fees of
P20,000.00 plus miscellaneous expenses of P2,000.00, but she failed to perform her
undertaking with her client; thus she was found guilty of gross negligence and
dereliction of duty. Likewise, in Wilkie, Atty. Limos was held administratively liable for
her deceitful and dishonest conduct when she obtained a loan of P250,000.00 from her
client and issued two postdated checks in the latter's favor to pay the said loan despite
knowledge of insuf ciency of funds to cover the same. In both cases, the Court, gave
Atty. Limos a warning that repetition of the same or similar acts by her will merit a more
severe penalty.
Once again, for the third time, Atty. Limos is facing an administrative case before
this Court for receiving the amount of P200,000.00 from the complainant purportedly
for a possible amicable settlement with her client BHF. However, Atty. Limos was no
longer BHF's counsel and was not authorize to negotiate and conclude a settlement for
and on behalf of BHF nor was she authorized to receive any money in behalf of BHF. Her
blunder is compounded by the fact that she did not turn over the money to BHF, nor did
she return the same to the complainant, despite due demand. Furthermore, she even
tried to get the next installment knowing fully well that she was not authorized to enter
into settlement negotiations with the complainant as her engagement as counsel of
BHF had already ceased.
The fact that this is Atty. Limos' third transgression exacerbates her offense. The
foregoing factual antecedents demonstrate her propensity to employ deceit and
misrepresentation. It is not too farfetched for this Court to conclude that from the very
beginning, Atty. Limos had planned to employ deceit on the complainant to get hold of
a sum of money. Such a conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member
of the Bar.
Atty. Limos' case is further highlighted by her lack of regard for the charges
brought against her. Similar with Wilkie, despite due notice, Atty. Limos did not bother
to answer the complaint against her. She also failed to le her mandatory conference
brief and her veri ed position paper. Worse, Atty. Limos did not even enter appearance
either personally or by counsel, and she failed to appear at the scheduled date of the
mandatory conferences which she was duly notified. 17
By her failure to present convincing evidence, or any evidence for that matter, to
justify her actions, Atty. Limos failed to demonstrate that she still possessed the
integrity and morality demanded of a member of the Bar. Her seeming indifference to
the complaint brought against her was made obvious by her unreasonable absence
from the proceedings before the IBP. Her disobedience to the IBP is, in fact, a gross
and blatant disrespect for the authority of the Court.
Despite her two prior suspensions, still, Atty. Limos is once again demonstrating
to this Court that not only is she un t to stay in the legal profession for her deceitful
conduct but is also remiss in following the dictates of the Court, which has supervision
over her. Atty. Limos' unwarranted obstinacy is a great insolence to the Court which
cannot be tolerated.
The present case comes clearly under the grounds given in Section 27, 18 Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the
penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender. Considering
the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of Atty. Limos' prior misconduct
which grossly degrades the legal profession, the imposition of the ultimate penalty of
disbarment is warranted.
In imposing the penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Limos, the Court is aware that
the power to disbar is one to be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of
misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as a legal
professional and as an of cer of the Court. 19 However, Atty. Limos' recalcitrant
attitude and unwillingness to heed with the Court's warning, which is deemed to be an
affront to the Court's authority over members of the Bar, warrant an utmost disciplinary
sanction from this Court. Her repeated desecration of her ethical commitments proved
herself to be un t to remain in the legal profession. Worse, she remains apathetic to the
need to reform herself. SDAaTC
"[T]he practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon
those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required
by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions." 20 "Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most
sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in
the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore
the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and of ce, and sets a
pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic."
21
Indeed, Atty. Limos has disgraced the legal profession. The facts and evidence
obtaining in this case de nitely establish her failure to live up to her duties as a lawyer
in accordance with the strictures of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby making her unworthy to
continue as a member of the bar.
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos, having violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility by committing grave misconduct and willful
insubordination, is DISBARRED and her name ordered STRICKEN OFF the Roll of
Attorneys effective immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the records of Atty. Sinamar Limos.
Further, let other copies be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the
Of ce of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in
the country for their information and guidance.
This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED. AaCTcI
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin, Perez, Mendoza,
Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Brion * and Del Castillo, * JJ., are on official leave.
Peralta ** and Jardeleza, ** JJ., are on official business.
Footnotes
* On official leave.
** On official business.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2. Id. at 2.
3. Id. at 2-3.
4. Id. at 6.
5. Id. at 3.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 7.
8. Id. at 3.
9. Id. at 9.
10. Id. at 96-102.
11. Id. at 102.
12. Id. at 94-95.

13. Id. at 93.
14. Id. at 18.

15. 563 Phil. 453 (2007).
16. 591 Phil. 1 (2008).

17. Rollo, p. 98.

18. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor . — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his of ce as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such of ce, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
19. Spouses Floran v. Atty. Ediza, A.C. No. 5325, February 9, 2016.
20. Atty. Alcantara, et al. v. Atty. De Vera, 650 Phil. 214, 220 (2010).
21. Yu, et al. v. Atty. Palaña, 580 Phil. 19, 28-29 (2008).

Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 11246. June 14, 2016.]

ARNOLD PACAO , complainant, vs. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS , respondent.

Before this Court is a veri ed complaint 1 led on November 4, 2011 by Arnold

12. Id. at 94-95.

14. Id. at 18.

16. 591 Phil. 1 (2008).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like