The Case:

Arnolds wife, Mariadel, was charged for qualified theft before the Mandaluyong
City Prosecutors Office by BHF Pawnshop. During the preliminary
investigation, Atty. Sinamar Limos appeared as counsel for BHF. To buy peace,
the complainant initiated negotiation with BHF, through Atty. Limos, for a
possible settlement.
After a series of negotiation, Atty. Limos relayed that BHF is willing to accept
payment of P530,000, to be paid in four instalments. Later, Atty. Limos accepted
the amount of P200,000.00 as partial payment, in behalf of BHF, with an
undertaking to provide a signed affidavit of desistance, and a joint motion to
compromise agreement.
Despite receipt of the amount, however, Atty. Limos failed to deliver on her
promise; she even tried to collect the next instalment but complainant
refused. Arnold was informed by Camille Bonifacio, BHFs representative, that
Atty. Limos was no longer BHFs counsel and was not authorised to to negotiate
any settlement nor receive any money in behalf go BHF. She also told him that
BHF did not receive the money given to Atty. Limos.

The Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Limos should be held administratively liable.

The Ruling:

Atty. Limos was previously suspended twice by the Supreme Court and was
warned that repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe
penalty.
[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.6 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 office, and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and
dangerous elements of the body politic.7
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.
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, 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.