You are on page 1of 3

SANTOS 9 LLAMAS

FACTS:
Soliman Santos is a member of the Bar filed a complaint for
misrepresentation and non-payment of (membership dues against Atty. Francisco
Llamas.
Santos basis his claims on the grounds that: (1) Llamas has been
dismissed as Pasay City judge; and (2) his conviction for estafa.
Llamas contends that (1) his dismissal was reversed and set aside; (2)
that his principal occupation was a farm; (3) which he had declared in his income
Tax Return. And moreover, since he was a senior citizen, he was exempt in
paying (in pursuant to Sec 4, RA 7432), and that Llamas believed in good faith
that he is only allowed a limited practice.
ISSUE: WoN Llamas can be held administratively liable?
HELD: YES.
RATIO:
1. a lawyer by indicating by IBP-Rizal xxxx in his pleadings
thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his
IBP due, is guilty of violating:
a. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
b. Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all time uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
IBP.
c. C a n o n 1 0 - A l a w y e r o w e s c a n d o r, f a i r n e s s a n d
good faith to the Court
d. Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any court, nor shall he mislead or allow the
court to be misled by an artifice.
2. A lawyers failure to pay his IPB dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings that he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty --HOWEVER, in view of Llamas advanced age, his express willingness to
pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the
Court held a penalty of 4 year suspension or until he paid his dues, as
appropriate.
GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS vs. NALDOZA
FACTS:
Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. filed a disbarment case against
Atty. Promo Naldoza, their former counsel.

Naldoza appealed a decision of POEA. In line with this, Gatchalian asserts


that the disbarments should prosper since Naldoza committed the ff acts:
1. Appealing a decision, knowing that the same was already final and
executor
2. D e c e i t f u l l y o b t a i n i n g t w o t h o u s a n d , f i v e h u n d r e d a n d f i f t y f i v e U S d o l l a r s ( U S $ 2 , 5 5 5 ) f r o m complainant, allegedly for
cash bond in the appealed case
3. Issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act.
Naldoza was claimed to ask for a Cash Bond in UNITED
STATES amounting to TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE
( U S $ 2 , 5 5 5 ) (for payment) to the Supreme Court in order that the said
appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court.
Gatchalian came to know that there was no such Cash
B o n d p a i d t o t h e S C , a n d i n f a c t , t h e f e e s w e r e o n l y nominal
(p6228). Moreover, the receipt that Naldoza presented to Gatchalian which
allegedly emanated from the SC was spurious.
An estafa case was filed against Naldoza. It was later on
dismissed but he was held liable for the amount of US $2,555.

Naldoza seems that he not be suspended in the practice of law.

Issue:
WoN Atty. Naldoza should be punished for his acts
Held:
Yes.
Atty. Primo Naldoza is DISBARRED not just suspended.

On the first issue:


Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of
the appeal. either has there (een an)sho!in$ that the appeal !as dismissed on
the $round that the <'"A 3ecision had (ecome final ande ecutor). 1orse there
has (een no e,idence that respondent ne! that the case !as
unappeala(le./ndeed the records of this Court sho!s that the <etition for
#e,ie! !as dismissed for petitioner?s7@atchalian?s8 failure to su(mit an
Affida,it of Ser,ice and a le$i(le duplicate of the assailed 'rder.Clearl) this
char$e has no le$ to stand on.

'n the net t!o issues:
o
1hen &aldo%a paid <40000 and issued a chec to complainant as his
moral o(li$ationB he indirectl)admitted the char$e. &ormall) this is not the
actuation of one !ho is falsel) accused of appropriatin$the mone) of another. This
is an admission of misconduct. 7#C &ote: &aldo%a claims that @atchaliano!es
him <4;0T in attorne)s? fees and after accountin$ he paid him <40T as his
moral o(li$ation8
o
the amount of b2555 !as not a part of his attorne)?s lien. e demanded
the mone) from his client onthe prete t that it !as needed for the <etition (efore
the Supreme Court (ut he actuall) con,erted it tohis personal $ain.


&ot onl) did he misappropriate the mone) entrusted to him he also fa ed
a reason to caDole his client to part !ithhis mone). 1orse he had the $all to falsif)
an official receipt of this Court to co,er up his misdeeds. Clearl) hedoes not
deser,e to continue (ein$ a mem(er of the (ar.

You might also like