Case Summary (A.C. No. 6383)
Administrative Complaint Overview
- Complainant Irene Santos-Tan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Romeo Robiso for malpractice and issuing a bouncing check.
- The complaint seeks disbarment and the return of P85,000.00, plus interest.
- Complainant engaged respondent's services in December 2000, paying an acceptance fee of P100,000.00 for representation in a probate case.
Allegations of Negligence
- Complainant discovered that only a notice of appearance had been filed by respondent after several months of inactivity.
- On November 3, 2003, complainant demanded the return of her professional fees due to lack of service.
- Respondent issued a check for P85,000.00, which was later dishonored for insufficient funds.
Respondent's Defense
- Respondent claimed that delays were due to the suspension of the regular presiding judge and that he made efforts to follow up on the case.
- He alleged that the check was issued to stop complainant's verbal abuse and that it was without consideration.
- Respondent maintained that he was not negligent and had been diligent in his duties.
Complainant's Counterarguments
- Complainant refuted respondent's claims, asserting that he should have known about the judge's suspension.
- She argued that it was implausible for her to bully a lawyer and that the check was issued under duress.
- Complainant provided an affidavit from her sister, Miriam, who corroborated her account of the events.
IBP Proceedings and Findings
- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted hearings and required position papers from both parties.
- The hearing officer found that while respondent was not grossly negligent, he was liable for issuing a bouncing check.
- The IBP recommended a one-month suspension and reimbursement of P70,000.00 to complainant.
Court's Resolution on Negligence
- The Court affirmed the IBP's findings, agreeing that respondent could not expedite the resolution of the pending motions.
- It noted that the acting presiding judge's reluctance to act on the motions was beyond respondent's control.
Legal Implications of Issuing a Bouncing Check
- The Court emphasized that issuing a bouncing check constitutes serious miscon...continue reading