G.R. No. 4178, July 8, 2019
Pedro Lukang, Complainant vs. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Pedro Lukang sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas for multiple violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The allegations, spanning several supplemental petitions, included that Llamas, as opposing counsel in various civil and criminal cases involving the Lukang family properties, filed a petition for reconstitution of titles while those cases were pending. In that petition, he misleadingly asserted his clients’ ownership and possession of the disputed lots, failed to disclose the pending litigation, and falsely claimed the properties were free from liens. Further, he was accused of tampering with court records by antedating a receipt of an order, obstructing family settlement, and committing forum-shopping by filing successive intestate proceedings in different courts. An additional charge cited his prior conviction for estafa.
In his defense, Llamas argued the reconstitution petition was to protect his clients’ interests, the record-tampering was an honest mistake, and he encouraged family settlement. He noted his earlier dismissal as a judge was reversed and he was later promoted. Regarding the estafa conviction, he stated it was on appeal. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, adopting an investigator’s report, found merit in several charges but modified the recommended penalty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the IBP’s finding of liability and imposed a six-month suspension. The Court found Llamas violated his duties as an officer of the court. His act of filing a petition for reconstitution of title while failing to disclose the pending litigation over the same properties constituted a lack of candor and fairness to the court, misleading it by omission. This breached Canon 10, and Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to avoid falsehood, not mislead the court, and observe procedural rules without misusing them to defeat justice.
Regarding the estafa conviction, the Court noted it was subsequently reversed on appeal, acquitting Llamas. Following precedent, an acquittal prevents a disbarment complaint based solely on that alleged moral turpitude from prospering. However, the Court emphasized this was not Llamas’s first infraction, having been previously suspended for one year in another case for non-payment of IBP dues and misrepresentations. Considering the totality of his misconduct—specifically the deceit in the reconstitution proceeding and his prior record—a six-month suspension was deemed proper and condign, with a stern warning against repetition.