A.C. No.

,
11246, June v.
14,
2016ARNOL ATTY.
D PACAO SINAMAR
, LIMOS
Complainant ,
 Respondent r 4, 2011 by
.Before this Arnold
Court is a Pacao
verified complainan
complaint t!, see"in#
1
the
filed
disbarment
on Novembe
ofAtty. of a member
$inamar of the Bar.
%imos Atty. The Fact
%imos! for $ometime in
conduct &arch 200',
unbecomin# complainant
(s )ife
&ariadel h
Pacao, in&andaluyo
former vault n# City, )as
custodian char#ed )ith
of B*+ ualified
Pa)nshop
theft by B*+.
B*+! branc
At the
preliminary the case )as
investi#ation filed before
, Atty. %imos the e#ional
appeared as -rial Court of
counselfor &andaluyon
B*+. - # City.
hereafter, 2
Chan obles/i )ith B*+,
rtuala)librar throu#h
y-o buy Atty. %imos,
peace, the for a possible
complainant settlement. A
initiated meetin#
ne#otiation )asthen
arran#ed that she )as
bet)een the duly
complainant authori ed
and Atty. by B*+.After
%imos, )here a series of
the latter ne#otiations
represented , Atty.
%imos be paid in
relayed that full or
B*+ is byinstallme
demandin# nts. +urther
the sum of ne#otiation
P 0,000. led to an
a#reement
00 to
)hereby the entrusted to
complainant Atty. %imos,
)ould pay )ho )ill then
an initial deliver to
amount of the
P200,000.0 complainant
0 to be a si#ned
affidavit of compromise
desistance, a a#reement
compromise for filin#
a#reement,a )ith
nd a the court.
3oint motio
n to approve Chan obles/i
rtuala)librar
y n initial
amount
ctober of P200,000
25, 2005, .00 to Atty.
the %imos,
complainant )ho in turn,
#ave the si#ned anAc
"no)led#men Atty. %imos
t eceipt failed to
4
meet the
reco#ni in terms oftheir
# her a#reement.
underta"in#s Not)ithstand
as counsel of in# such
B*+. *o)ever,
failure, Atty. amountof
%imos still their
sou#ht to purported
#et from the a#reement,
complainant but
the ne6t the latter
installment refused.
 met B*+(s
Chan obles/i representativ
rtuala)librar e, Camille
y-hereafter, Bonifacio,
in 7une )ho informed
2010, the him that
complainant Atty. %imos
)asno lon#er settlement
B*+(s nor receive
counsel and any money
)as not in behalf of
authori ed B*+. -
to ne#otiate hecomplaina
any nt also
learned that he #ave to
B*+ did not Atty.%imos.
receive the 8

P200,000.0 Chan obles/i

0 initial rtuala)librar
payment that y-his
prompted
the
complainant P200,000.0
to send 0 initial
a demand settlement
letter payment,
9
butthe latter
to Atty. failed and
%imos to
return the
refused to disbarment
do so. case a#ainst
'
Atty. %imos
Chan obles/i before the
rtuala)librar :nte#rated
y-he Bar of the
complainant Philippines
then filed a
 :BP! %imos to
;Commissio file an
n on Bar ans)er
<iscipline but she did
CB<!. -he not file any
:BP;CB< re responsive p
leadin#.
uired Atty. 5
 A April 15,
mandatory 2012, but
conference Atty. %imos
)as then set failed to
on &arch 1 attend.-
and 25, hereafter,
2012, and the :BP;CB<
ordered the did not
parties to bother to
submit their submither
position position
paper, but paper. n
once a#ain,
Atty. %imos &ay ,
2014, the disbarment
:nvesti#atin of Atty.
# %imos.
Commission 10

er -he
recommende :nvesti#atin
d the #Commissio
ner found
enou#h practiced
evidence on deceit on
record to thecompl
prove that
Atty. %imos
committed
fraud and