SECOND DIVISION
IRENE SANTOS-TAN, ADM. CASE. No. 6383
Represented by her Attorney-in-fact
MIRIAM S. ELGINCOLIN, Present:
Complainant,
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,
- versus - TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
PERALTA, JJ.*
ATTY. ROMEO R. ROBISO,
Respondent. Promulgated:
March 31, 2009
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga,
J.:
This
is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Irene Santos-Tan against respondent
Atty. Romeo Robiso.[1]
Complainant charged respondent with malpractice for grossly neglecting his
duties and responsibilities as counsel for complainant and for issuing a
bouncing check. Complainant seeks that respondent be disbarred and ordered to
return the sum of P85,000.00, plus interest.
Complainant
asserts the following: Sometime in
December 2000, complainant engaged the professional services of respondent as
her counsel to represent her in Special Proceeding No. 01-101339, entitled In
the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Eusebio G. Tan, a.k.a. Tan Chin Bio G.,
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45. She paid respondent
P100,000.00 as acceptance fee. Subsequently, respondent entered his
appearance as new counsel on
After several months had passed,
complainant asked respondent about the status of her case. She found out that
her case had not progressed and that the only pleading that respondent had filed
was his notice of appearance.[2] Not
satisfied with the way respondent was handling her case, complainant and her
sister, Miriam Elgincolin (Miriam), went to his office on P85,000.00.[3]
However, respondent’s check was
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds.[4] Despite several demands, respondent failed
to make good or replace the check. In
reply to complainant’s final demand, made
through her counsel, respondent wrote a letter dated
In compliance with the Court’s
Before respondent entered his appearance as counsel, a motion for reconsideration of the order appointing Jude Chua Tan as administrator of complainant’s husband and a motion for early resolution of said motion for reconsideration had already been filed by complainant’s former counsel. Still, respondent “went back and forth to the court to personally follow-up the resolution of the motion for reconsideration.”[9] However, the branch clerk of court would only advise him to wait “for the replacement of the presiding judge who retired.”[10] Further still, he would, once or twice a month, still drop by the office of the branch clerk of court to inquire about the status of the case. But without fail, the answer he would get was “no new judge yet.”[11] It was only later that he learned that the regular judge did not actually retire but was suspended by the Court. Respondent recorded the dates of his court visits in his notes and these were part of the case file which was turned over to complainant when she terminated his services. Whatever delay in the resolution of the motions before the RTC was due to the suspension of the regular presiding judge of the court and the reluctance of the acting judge to resolve said motions during such period. In effect, he even contacted the opposing counsel to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Thus, he was never remiss in his duties as counsel for complainant.[12]
Complainant was proud and nasty. His secretary would receive her calls berating him on the slow progress of the case. Complainant also badmouthed her former lawyers while expressing her disappointment over their failure to have the RTC appoint her as an administrator of her husband’s estate.
As to the acceptance fee, it was
understood to be non-refundable. But on P85,000.00 check and gave it to her.[14]
In
her Reply to respondent’s Comment and Supplemental Comment dated P85,000.00 just to appease another
person. Respondent could have called security to stop her if indeed she was
bullying him in his office. Moreover, respondent himself deducted P15,000.00
from the acceptance fee as payment for the alleged professional service he had
rendered.[17]
Attached to complainant’s reply is the
affidavit[18] of her
sister Miriam who was with her when she went to respondent’s office and witnessed
everything that had transpired therein. According
to Miriam, respondent explained to complainant that he had been following-up
the case and that he could not return the full amount of the acceptance fee. Complainant was told by respondent that he had no money so instead he wrote her a
check before her departure to the
In
a Resolution dated
The issues are: (1) whether respondent was negligent in handling complainant’s case; and (2) whether respondent should be disciplined for issuing a bouncing check. To thresh out the issues, the IBP conducted the mandatory conference/hearing and thereafter required both parties to submit their respective verified position papers.
Both parties submitted their respective verified position papers both substantially reiterating their arguments in previous submission.
Complainant
notes that respondent had admitted in effect his negligent handling of her case
when he returned P85,000.00 of the acceptance fee she paid him. The
commission of a criminal act, such as the issuance of a bouncing check, a
violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) 22, clearly constitute gross
misconduct. Respondent’s claim that
there was no consideration for the check is not true since it was issued to
return the complainant’s P100,000.00 attorney’s fees for services that
were not rendered. There was in effect a rescission and cancellation of the
retainer agreement.[21]
For
respondent’s part, he alleges that his secretary, Amarie Malana, saw the notes
in which he recorded the dates when he went to court to follow up the status of
complainant’s case. Respondent’s secretary also witnessed how he was berated in
his office on November 2003. Since he was also in a hurry to catch up with his
law class, he quickly issued the check to complainant.[22] As
for complainant’s case, neglect should not be attributed to him then since the
motions filed by her previous lawyer were already submitted for resolution and there
was nothing further he could do. That at the beginning of his engagement as
lawyer, he made it clear to complainant
that the P100,000.00 was an acceptance fee and was non-refundable.
The
hearing officer, Caesar Dulay, in his Report and Recommendation dated P70,000.00,
P30,000.00 of which corresponds
to the services rendered by him on a quantum meruit. He did not find
respondent to be grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as there
was nothing more respondent could do in accelerating the resolution of the
motions which were already submitted for resolution. The filing of additional
pleadings or papers with the court would not be necessary. During the time the
motion for reconsideration was pending the regular presiding judge of the court
was under suspension and the acting presiding judge who issued the resolution
considering the motion as submitted for resolution was not disposed to act on
said motion but instead opted to wait for the regular presiding judge to act on
it.
However, the hearing officer recommended
that respondent be made liable for issuing the bouncing check. Whatever was respondent’s
reason for issuing the check, the fact remains that the same was dishonored by
the bank for having been drawn against insufficient funds. If respondent’s
purpose was just to appease complainant to make her leave his office and he
firmly believed that he had no obligation to return the P100,000.00,
then he could have issued a stop-payment order to the bank before the encashment
of the check, the hearing officer added.
The Board of Governors of the IBP, in
a Resolution on
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the administrative case is now before the Court for resolution.
The Court affirms the findings of the IBP.
On the issue of negligence on the part of respondent in handling complainant’s case, the Court agrees that based on the facts presented there was nothing that he could have done to expedite the resolution of the motion for reconsideration then pending before the RTC. The RTC had already ordered that the motion for reconsideration be submitted for resolution. Respondent could not be faulted if the acting presiding judge did not want to act on the motion until the regular presiding judge return.
Regarding the other issues, as a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22). By issuing a check in violation of the provisions of this law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct.
In People v. Tuanda,[25] we explained the nature of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as follows:
The gravamen of the offense punished by
B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that
is dishonored upon its presentation for payment x x x. The
thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the making of
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its
deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the
law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property
but an offense against public order.
x
x x x
The effects of the issuance of a worthless
check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of the community at large.
The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an
injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless
commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well
pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.[26]
In issuing a worthless check, respondent showed that he was unmindful of the deleterious effects of his act to the public interest and public order. Respondent violated the Attorney’s Oath that he will, among others, obey the laws. The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically provides:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 – A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession. [emphasis supplied]
The issuance of bouncing check cannot be countenanced nor condoned under any circumstances. The act of a lawyer in issuing a check which is drawn against insufficient funds constitutes deceitful conduct or conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. The Court has held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence.[27]
As
such, we have held that deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance
of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.[28]
The IBP Board of Governors recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year. However, the Court notes that, in practice,
acceptance fees of lawyers are generally non-refundable and the fact that, in
the present case, respondent is willing to make good the amount of the bouncing
check. Thus, we deem that one month suspension from the practice of law and the
restitution of P85,000.00 to complainant would be sufficient in this
case.
The Court reiterates that membership in the legal profession is a privilege and demands a high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law.[29] As servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an exemplar for others to emulate. The responsibilities of a lawyer are greater than those of a private citizen. He is looked up to in the community.
IN
VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Romeo R. Robiso is ORDERED SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) month effective upon
receipt of this Decision. He is further ORDERED
to pay complainant the full amount of P85,000.00, as reflected in
the check. He is STERNLY WARNED that a commission of a similar
offense will be acted upon with more severity.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant
and the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
*Additional member as replacement of Justice Arturo D. Brion who is on official leave per Special Order No. 587.
[7]