Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

Santos Jr. Vs Llamas

- Santos filed a complaint against Llamas for misrepresenting that he paid his bar membership dues and for failing to pay his dues since 1991. - Llamas claimed he was exempt from paying dues as a senior citizen but offered to pay past dues. - The IBP found Llamas guilty and recommended a 3-month suspension and payment of dues. - The Court ruled that Llamas violated the code of professional responsibility by misrepresenting his dues status, but imposed a lighter 1-year suspension given his age and willingness to pay dues.

Uploaded by

Lu Cas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

Santos Jr. Vs Llamas

- Santos filed a complaint against Llamas for misrepresenting that he paid his bar membership dues and for failing to pay his dues since 1991. - Llamas claimed he was exempt from paying dues as a senior citizen but offered to pay past dues. - The IBP found Llamas guilty and recommended a 3-month suspension and payment of dues. - The Court ruled that Llamas violated the code of professional responsibility by misrepresenting his dues status, but imposed a lighter 1-year suspension given his age and willingness to pay dues.

Uploaded by

Lu Cas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Santos Jr.

Vs Llamas

Facts:
On Feb. 8, 1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr. a member of the bar, filed a complaint
against Atty. Francisco R. Llamas for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership
dues. Santos claimed that Llamas, for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR
and IBP O.R. Nos. and data in his pleadings, as the latter only indicates ―IBP Rizal 259060‖ for
at least three years already, as show by the pleadings filed by Llamas in various courts in 1995,
1996 and 1997.

On April 18, 1997, Santos filed a certification by the then IBP president of the IBP that
respondent‘s last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then he has not paid or remitted
any amount to cover his membership fees up to the present.

On July 7, 1997, Llamas was required to comment on the complaint and in his comment, Llamas
alleged that he was exempt from payment of IBP dues under R.A. 7432, Sec. 4, for being a
senior citizen since 1992 and that he was engaged only in ―limited‖ practice of law. Llamas,
also added, that if despite such honest belief of being covered by the exemption and if only to
show that he never in any manner wilfully and deliberately failed and refused compliance with
such dues, he is willing at any time to fulfill and pay all past dues even with interests, charges
and surcharges and penalties.

On Dec. 4, 1998, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and approving the
report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner which found respondent guilty,
and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months and until he pays
his IBP dues.

Issue:
Whether or not, Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:
Yes, Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Llamas violated Canon 7 which states that ―A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.‖ Although Llamas‘ failure to pay his IBP dues may be in good faith, his act of
indicating ―IBP-RIZAL 259060‖ in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and
the courts the he had paid his IBP dues is contrary with the duty of upholding the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession.
Llamas‘ failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court
indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of his advanced age, his express
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court
ruled to impose the penalty of one year suspension upon Llamas from the practice of law or
until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

You might also like