G.R. No. A.C. No. 6383 March 31, 2009
Irene Santos-Tan, Represented by her Attorney-in-fact Miriam S. Elgincolin, Complainant, vs. Atty. Romeo R. Robiso, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Irene Santos-Tan engaged the services of respondent Atty. Romeo R. Robiso in December 2000 to represent her in Special Proceeding No. 01-101339, involving the intestate estate of her husband, pending before the RTC of Manila, Branch 45. She paid him an acceptance fee of ₱100,000.00. Respondent entered his appearance on December 12, 2002. Complainant later discovered that the case had not progressed, with respondent having filed only his notice of appearance. Dissatisfied, complainant and her sister went to respondent’s office on November 3, 2003, demanding the return of the professional fees. Respondent issued Asia United Bank Check No. 0048229 dated November 29, 2003, for ₱85,000.00, representing a partial refund. The check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Despite demands, respondent failed to make it good, claiming in a letter dated January 25, 2004, that the check was without consideration and was issued to stop complainant’s “acerbic verbal abuse.” Respondent defended his handling of the case, stating he made follow-ups but was told by the branch clerk to wait for the replacement of the presiding judge who was suspended, and that the motions filed by the previous counsel were already submitted for resolution. Complainant replied that respondent’s claim of being bullied was incredible and that he had deducted ₱15,000.00 from the fee for alleged services rendered.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent was negligent in handling complainant’s case.
2. Whether respondent should be disciplined for issuing a bouncing check.

RULING

1. On the issue of negligence, the Court, affirming the IBP findings, held that respondent was not grossly negligent. The motion for reconsideration filed by the previous counsel was already submitted for resolution before the RTC. The delay was attributable to the suspension of the regular presiding judge and the acting judge’s reluctance to resolve the motions. Respondent could not be faulted for the court’s inaction.
2. On the issue of the bouncing check, the Court held respondent liable for serious misconduct. The issuance of a worthless check in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) constitutes gross misconduct. It reflects on a lawyer’s moral character and fitness to practice law. The Court modified the IBP Board of Governors’ recommended penalty. Considering that acceptance fees are generally non-refundable and respondent’s willingness to make good the check, the Court deemed a one-month suspension from the practice of law and restitution of ₱85,000.00 to be sufficient.
Respondent Atty. Romeo R. Robiso was ORDERED SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) month and to PAY complainant the amount of ₱85,000.00. He was STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.