Santos-Tan v. Robiso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Irene Santos-Tan engaged the services of respondent Atty. Romeo Robiso as counsel in a Special Proceeding, paying him ₱100,000.00 as acceptance fee. Respondent entered his appearance in December 2002. After several months, complainant discovered that only a notice of appearance had been filed, and the case had not progressed. On November 3, 2003, complainant demanded the return of professional fees due to alleged lack of service. Respondent issued Asia United Bank Check No. 0048229 dated November 29, 2003, for ₱85,000.00, purportedly to return a portion of the fee. Procedural History: The check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Despite demands, respondent failed to make good the check. Respondent claimed the check was without consideration and issued to stop complainant's "acerbic verbal abuse." The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for evaluation. The IBP hearing officer recommended a one-month suspension and reimbursement of ₱70,000.00, finding no gross negligence in handling the case but holding respondent liable for the bouncing check. The IBP Board of Governors increased the suspension to one year. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent was negligent in handling complainant’s case. Whether respondent should be disciplined for issuing a bouncing check.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP regarding the lack of negligence in handling the case, as respondent could not expedite the resolution of pending motions due to the court's circumstances. However, the Court found respondent guilty of serious misconduct for issuing a bouncing check, violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) and the Attorney's Oath. The Court modified the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, imposing a one-month suspension from the practice of law and ordering the restitution of ₱85,000.00 to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in handling complainant’s case: The Court agreed with the IBP that respondent was not negligent in handling the complainant's case. The facts presented showed that the motion for reconsideration was already submitted for resolution before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Respondent could not be faulted for the delay, as the acting presiding judge was reluctant to act on the motion until the regular presiding judge returned. The Court found that there was nothing more respondent could have done to expedite the resolution of the pending motions. Therefore, attributing negligence to respondent for the delay in the case's progress was deemed unwarranted under the circumstances. On the issue of issuing a bouncing check: The Court held that respondent, as a lawyer, is presumed to know the law, particularly Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22). By issuing a check that was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, respondent committed an act that violates this law and constitutes serious misconduct. The Court emphasized that the gravamen of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, which has deleterious effects on public interest and public order. This act violates the Attorney's Oath to obey the laws of the land and promotes respect for the law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The issuance of a bouncing check demonstrates a lack of personal honesty and good moral character, rendering the lawyer unworthy of public confidence. Such conduct cannot be countenanced or condoned under any circumstance.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a bouncing check by a lawyer, even if intended to appease a client, constitutes serious misconduct and a violation of the Attorney's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action such as suspension from the practice of law and restitution.