Soliman M. Santos, Jr. vs. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas (379 Phil. 569) A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000

Soliman M. Santos, Jr. vs. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas (379 Phil. 569)

A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000


FACTS Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a fellow attorney, filed a letter-complaint with the Supreme Court on Feb 8, 1997, against Atty. Francisco R. Llamas for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. Santos noted repeated use of the receipt number “IBP Rizal 259060” by Llamas from 1995 to 1997 without proper indication of required PTR and IBP OR numbers. Sample pleadings from various years and courts were provided to substantiate the allegations. On March 18, 1997, the President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Atty. Ida R. Macalinao-Javier certified that Llamas’s last payment of dues was in 1991. On July 7, 1997, the Court demanded a response from Llamas and later referred the case to the IBP for further investigation. In his memorandum dated June 3, 1998, Llamas argued he mistakenly believed his limited practice and senior citizenship exempted him from paying IBP dues and that his non-indicative conduct was unauthorized. He claimed past significant circumstances, such as being dismissed then reinstated as a judge and later by conviction under appeal, underscored his status. On Dec 4, 1998, the IBP found Llamas guilty and suggested a suspension from practice pending dues payment for three months. Llamas’s motion was denied, prompting the Supreme Court’s involvement for final decision. Whether non-payment of IBP dues disqualifies Llamas from practicing law, notwithstanding his senior citizen status.


RULING YES Because payment of membership in the Integrated Bar is mandatory for continued good standing of members of the bar.


The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Rule 139-A, Sec. 9 & 10, non-payment of annual dues suspends membership in the Integrated Bar. Llamas’s assertion that senior citizenship exempted him was incorrect as the law does not pertain to bar association dues, only individual income taxes for low-income senior citizens. By consistently using “IBP Rizal 259060”, Llamas misled courts into believing he was in good standing. This act breached several clauses in the Code of Professional Responsibility, such as Rule 1.01, CANON 7, and CANON 10, Rule 10.01, all emphasizing integrity and good faith duties to the court.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147