8/13/2019 Santos Tan vs. Robiso

1/2

TITLE: Irene Santos-Tan vs. Atty. Romeo RobisoA.C. NO. 6383March 31, 2009

PONENTE: TINGA, J.

FACTS:In the probate case regarding the estate of Santos- Tans late husband, Santos -Tan engaged the

professional services of Robiso. She paid him his acceptance fee of PHP 100,000.Several months had passed when Santos-Tan discovered that no progress was made in her case.Unsatisfied with Robisos work, Santos -Tan demanded that Robiso return the acceptance fee.Robiso then issued a check for PHP 85,000 to Santos-Tan to return a portion of this fee.This check, however, was subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. After several demandswere made upon the him, Robiso wrote a letter asserting that the check was withoutconsideration and was merely issued to appease Santos-Tan.Robiso stated that after he had entered his appearance in the probate case regarding the

complainants husband, there was nothing more to do as her former counsel had already filed amotion for reconsideration regarding an issue therein and a motion for early resolution of saidmotion for reconsideration. Upon following up on these motions, Robiso found out that the

presiding judge over the case had been suspended and that the acting judge was reluctant toresolve the issues in the case.He also stated that the complainant was proud and nasty, berating him in his own office. Thus,the only reason he issued the check was to make her leave his office.

ISSUES:1. Was Robiso negligent in handling the case of Santos-Tan?2. Should Robiso be disciplined for the issuance of a bouncing check?

HELD/RATIO:1. NO. The issues presented show that Robiso could do nothing more to expedite the

motions pending before the RTC as the same had already been submitted for resolution.He could not be faulted for the actinf presiding judges reluctance to act on the motion

before the return of the regular presiding judge.2. YES. As a lawyer, Robiso is deemed to know the law regarding bouncing checks (B.P.

22) and the kind of deleterious effects on public order that said law is trying to prevent.His violation of the law is an act of serious misconduct. He violated the lawyers oaththat he will, among others, obey the law. He violated the ff. provisions of the code of

professional responsibility:

a. CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitutin, obey the laws of the land andpromote respect for the law and legal processes

b. RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, ordeceitful conduct

c. CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of thelegal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar

8/13/2019 Santos Tan vs. Robiso

2/2

d. RULE 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects onhis fitness to practice law , nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behavein a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The act of a lawyer in the issuance of a bouncing check which is drawn against insufficient funds

constitutes deceitful conduct or conduct unbecoming of an office of the court. It indicates alawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him and shows a lack of personalhonesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence. Robisosactions constitute, as have been held by the Court, gross misconduct for which a lawyer may besanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.

PENALTY: Suspension for 1 month A stern warning that similar actions in the future will be dealt with more severely Pay complainant PHP 85,000 as reflected in the check (Court noted that, in practice,

acceptance fees are generally non-refundable)