Santos vs.

Atty Llamas
(AC # 4749; 01/20/2000)

PONENTE: Justice Mendoza

PRINCIPLE: Using the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least six years is therefore
liable for his actions and is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 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 any artifice.

FACTS:
Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a member of the bar, sent a letter-complaint dated February 8,
1997 to this Court. He alleged that Atty. Francisco R. Llamas for a number of years had not
indicated the proper Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP)Official Receipt Numbers and data (date and place of issuance) in his pleadings. Ifat all, he
only indicated “IBP Rizal259060,” but he had been using this for at least three years already.
This matter was being brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that only a
duly admitted member of the bar “who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law.”
In his comment, Atty. Llamas claimed that since 1992, he publicly made it clear in his
Income Tax Return that he had only a limited practice of law and his principal occupation is
farming. And being a senior citizen since 1992, he is legally exempt under Section 4 of Republic
Act No. 7432in the payment of taxes. Thus, he honestly believed in view of his detachment from
a total practice of law, but only a limited practice, the subsequent payment by him of dues with
the Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption. Nonetheless, despite such honest belief, he
was ready to tender such fulfillment on payment.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent has misled the court about his standing in the IBP by using
the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least six years and therefore liable for his
actions

RULING:
 YES. Respondent admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice without having
paid his IBP dues. By indicating “IBP-Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter,
respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s 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 respondent’s advanced age, his express willingness
to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, we believe the penalty of
one (1) year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is
later, is appropriate.
Rule 1.01 provides — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
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 any artifice.

Agadan vs. Atty. Kilaan

(AC#938, 11/11/2013)
PONENTE: Justice Del Castillo

PRINCIPLE: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with
substantive public interest such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act
as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public the courts and
the administrative offices in general.

FACTS:
The complainants Agadan, et. al. filed a complain before the IBP against Atty. Kilaan for
falsification of documents, dishonesty, and deceit. They alleged that Kilaan intercalated certain
entries in the application for issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate
public utility jeepneys by substituting the name of the applicant from Adasing to that of
Batingwed; that Atty. Kilaan submitted false and insufficient documentary requirements in
support of Batingwed’s application for CPC.
Atty. Kilaan denied violating the Lawyer s Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He disclaimed any pat1icipation in the preparation of the Decision with respect to
the application of Batingwed for CPC. He explained that it is the Regional Director of the DOTC
who approves the application and who drafts the Decision. He denied intercalating the entries in
the application for CPC of Batingwed. He averred that once an application has been filed, the
application and all accompanying records remain with the LTFRB and could no longer be
retrieved by the applicant or his counsel.
In his Motion for Reconsideration tiled before the IBP Board of Governors, Atty. Kilaan
passed on the blame to his secretary for the inaccuracies in the entries in his Notarial Register.
He asserted that being a private practitioner, he is burdened with cases thus he delegated to his
secretary the job of recording the documents which he notarized in his Notarial Register.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Kilaan has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. Atty. Kilaan committed the following infractions: 1) violation of the Notarial Law; 2)
violation of the Lawyer s Oath; and 3) violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is
settled that it is the notary public who is personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries in
his Notarial Register. The Court is not persuaded by respondent s explanation that he is
burdened with cases thus he was constrained to delegate the recording of his notarial acts in his
Notarial Register to his secretary.
Sec. 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law provides: every notary public shall keep a register
to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as
notary; and he shall supply a ce1tified copy of such record, or any part thereof: to any person
applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore. From the language of the subsection, it is
abundantly clear that the notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial
register. Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid
sections by passing the buck to their secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day
persists despite our open condemnation.
 Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with
substantive public interest such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act
as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public the courts and
the administrative offices in general. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
Notaries public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of
their duties.
The inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entitles and his failure to enter the documents
that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public. He cannot escape
liability by putting the blame on his secretary

Bautista vs. Atty. Gonzales

(AM#1625, 2/12/1990)
PONENTE: Chief Justice Fernan

PRINCIPLE: Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same
should be subject to reimbursement. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay
expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous.

FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was
charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Required by
this Court to answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars
asking this Court to order complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges more
definite. In a resolution the Court granted respondent’s motion and required complainant to file
an amended complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging
that respondent committed the following acts:
“1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor
Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses,
including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in
litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on August
30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No.
Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest
thereof as attorney’s fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property
was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del
Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent Ramon
Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.”

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous

contract.

RULING:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months. The Court
finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a
client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional
Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the
same should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent and the
Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses
paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to
enforce the client’s rights is champertous. Such agreements are against public policy especially
where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in
consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The
execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client,
for which the former must incur administrative sanctions.

Domingo vs. Atty. Revilla

(AC#5473, 1/23/2018)
PONENTE: Justice Carpio
PRINCIPLE: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. Members of the Legal Profession to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients.

FACTS:
The complainant is an American citizen of Filipino descent. During a visit to the
Philippines, he sought the services of a lawyer to handle cases to be field against Arruiza and to
work on a settlement of the estate of his mother. The complainant alleged that the respondent
represented to him that he would take the cases in behalf of the law firm where he works in.
being based in the USA, complainant maintained constant communication with respondent thru
email and telephone.
In the course of employment, the complainant was constrained to give respondent
requested amounts in belief that he had no other choice. Respondent failed to give copies of
decisions and titles and even worse, he cut off communication between them. Due to the
respondent’s evasion, complainant contacted his law firm. He was surprised when he was told
that he was never been their client, and that the respondent was forced to resign due to several
complaints against him. This led Domingo to avail the services of another law firm. He found out
that no case was filed against Arruiza. He remitted almost half a million pesos to respondent,
only to find out that none of Atty. Revilla’s representations have been made.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent lawyer is guilt of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING:
The Court accepts the findings against the respondent but modifies the recommended
penalty considering that his violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility constituted
deliberate defraudation of the client instead of mere negligence.
Firstly, the respondent misled the complainant into thinking that it would be his law firm
that was to take on the case. Secondly, despite the fact that he had intimated to the complainant
that it would be highly unlikely to still have the adoption decree nullified due to the decree
having long become final and executory, he nonetheless accepted the case. Thirdly, he told the
complainant that he had already instituted the action for the annulment of the adoption despite
not having yet done so. Fourthly, he kept on demanding more money from the complainant
although the case was not actually even moving forward. Fifthly, he continued to make up
excuses in order to avoid having to furnish to the complainant the requested copies of court
documents that, in the first place, he could not produce. Lastly, he claimed that he intended to
return the money to the complainant but instead sent the latter a stale check.
All these acts, whether taken singly or together, manifested the respondent's
dishonesty and deceit towards the complainant, his client, in patent violation of Rule 1.01[28] of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 18.03 also provides: “A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”
Furthermore, the respondent did not abide by the mandate of Canon 15 that required members
of the Legal Profession to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
transactions with their clients. Members of the Bench are tasked with ensuring that the ends of
justice are served. Such negative imputations against them and the collegial bodies of the
Judiciary on the part of the respondent tended to erode the trust and confidence of the people in
our judicial system.