Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Irene Santos-Tan, represented by her attorney-in-fact Miriam S. Elgincolin, against Atty. Romeo R. Robiso. The complaint was lodged on March 31, 2009, concerning allegations of malpractice due to gross neglect of duties and the issuance of a bouncing check. In December 2000, Santos-Tan engaged Robiso's services to represent her in Special Proceeding No. 01-101339, related to the intestate estate of her late husband, Eusebio G. Tan, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45. She paid Robiso an acceptance fee of P100,000.00. However, after several months, Santos-Tan inquired about the status of her case and discovered that Robiso had only filed a notice of appearance, with no further progress made. Dissatisfied with his handling of the case, she and her sister visited Robiso's office on November 3, 2003, demanding a refund of the professional fees due to the lack of services rendered. To partiall...

Facts:

1. Engagement of Legal Services

   • In December 2000, complainant Irene Santos-Tan engaged respondent Atty. Romeo Robiso as her counsel to represent her in Special Proceeding No. 01-101339, involving the intestate estate of her late husband, Eusebio G. Tan. She paid him an acceptance fee of P100,000.00.

2. Lack of Progress in the Case

   • After several months, complainant discovered that her case had not progressed. The only pleading filed by respondent was his notice of appearance on 12 December 2002.

3. Demand for Refund and Issuance of Bouncing Check

   • On 3 November 2003, complainant and her sister, Miriam Elgincolin, went to respondent’s office to demand the return of the professional fees, claiming no services were rendered. Respondent issued Asia United Bank Check No. 0048229 for P85,000.00, but it was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

4. Respondent’s Defense

   • Respondent claimed he made follow-ups on the case but was told by the branch clerk of court to wait for the replacement of the suspended presiding judge. He also alleged that complainant verbally abused him, prompting him to issue the check to appease her. He deducted P15,000.00 from the fee, claiming it was for services rendered.

5. Complainant’s Rebuttal

   • Complainant denied bullying respondent and asserted that the check was issued to return part of the acceptance fee. She also questioned respondent’s claim of follow-ups, as he only learned of the judge’s suspension after reviewing the case records.

6. IBP Proceedings

   • The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The hearing officer found respondent not grossly negligent but liable for issuing a bouncing check. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Negligence in Legal Practice

   • A lawyer is not negligent if the delay in a case is due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the suspension of a presiding judge. Respondent’s actions did not amount to gross negligence.

2. Violation of B.P. 22

   • The issuance of a bouncing check is a violation of B.P. 22, which punishes the act of putting worthless checks into circulation. This act is considered an offense against public order and not merely a private wrong.

3. Code of Professional Responsibility

   • Lawyers are bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. Issuing a bouncing check constitutes deceitful conduct and reflects poorly on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

4. Penalty for Misconduct

   • While the IBP recommended a one-year suspension, the Court deemed a one-month suspension sufficient, considering that acceptance fees are generally non-refundable and respondent was willing to make good on the check.

5. Continuing Requirement of Good Moral Character

   • Membership in the legal profession is a privilege that requires a high degree of good moral character. Lawyers must act as exemplars and uphold the dignity of the profession at all times.