Eusebio Sison and Atty. Lourdes Philina Dumlao were friends. In July 2013, Sison consulted with Atty. Dumlao for the annulment of his marriage. Atty. Dumlao responded to the queries of Sison and she accepted Php35,000.00 from Sison. Thereafter, Atty. Dumlao indorsed Sison to a psychologist for a psychological evaluation for purposes of annulment of his marriage. In October 2013, since there were no development in his case, Sison requested from Atty. Dumlao the refund of his Php35k. Atty. Dumlao told him that the money was already paid to the psychologist. In November 2013, the psychologist emailed the psychological evaluation report to Sison. In 2014, since there were no updates from Atty. Dumlao regarding the progress of the case, Sison filed an administrative case against Atty. Dumlao for misconduct for failing to attend to his case with competence and diligence.
Atty. Dumlao countered that she eventually did not take the case of Sison due to conflict of interest. She averred that her relatives convinced her not to take on the case because Sison’s wife is her relative and that taking on the case would only offend their family. Further, the Php35k she accepted from Sison was fully used for the psychological evaluation which was confirmed by the psychologist.
The IBP ruled in favor of Atty. Dumlao as it found that there was no written contract between Sison and Atty. Dumlao for the latter to represent him.
Sison filed a petition for review questioning the recommendation of the IBP. Sison argued that by reason of Atty. Dumlao’s acceptance of the Php35k, there already existed a lawyer-client relationship between him and Atty. Dumlao.
ISSUE: What is the liability of Atty. Dumlao?
HELD: She is liable for failing to inform Sison of the status of his case. Atty. Dumlao failed to properly communicate to Sison that she is no longer taking on the case of Sison. Sison only learned about the conflict of interest on the part of Atty. Dumlao when she filed her answer to the administrative complaint of Sison.
Anent the lack of a written agreement between Sison and Atty. Dumlao, the SC emphasized: A lawyer-client relationship is established when lawyers consistently manifest to a person consulting them that they would provide legal representation or assistance, regardless of the close ties between the parties, or the lack of a written contract, or the non-payment of legal fees. Lawyers who later on decide not to represent their client have the duty to inform their client. Failure to do so will be cause for administrative sanction.
Besides, a scrutiny of the text conversation between Atty. Dumlao and Sison reveals that Atty. Dumlao intended to file the case for Sison but when she dialed to do so, she failed to properly inform Sison as to the real reason why.