Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 183 views

    Santos v. Llamas

    Uploaded by

    jovani ema
    (1) This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Francisco R. Llamas for failure to pay bar membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and for misrepresenting his IBP membership number in court pleadings over several years. (2) The court held that Llamas is not exempt from paying IBP dues, as he claims, and that by using the same IBP number in pleadings for at least 6 years he misled the court and public about paying his dues, violating legal ethics rules. (3) Taking Llamas' advanced age into account, the court suspended him from practice for 1 year or until payment of back

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Santos v. Llamas

    Uploaded by

    jovani ema
    183 views2 pages
    (1) This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Francisco R. Llamas for failure to pay bar membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and for misrepresenting his IBP membership number in court pleadings over several years. (2) The court held that Llamas is not exempt from paying IBP dues, as he claims, and that by using the same IBP number in pleadings for at least 6 years he misled the court and public about paying his dues, violating legal ethics rules. (3) Taking Llamas' advanced age into account, the court suspended him from practice for 1 year or until payment of back

    Original Title

    31. SANTOS V. LLAMAS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Francisco R. Llamas for failure to pay bar membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and for misrepresenting his IBP membership number in court pleadings over several years. (2) The court held that Llamas is not exempt from paying IBP dues, as he claims, and that by using the same IBP number in pleadings for at least 6 years he misled the court and public about paying his dues, violating legal ethics rules. (3) Taking Llamas' advanced age into account, the court suspended him from practice for 1 year or until payment of back

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    183 views2 pages

    Santos v. Llamas

    Uploaded by

    jovani ema
    (1) This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Francisco R. Llamas for failure to pay bar membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and for misrepresenting his IBP membership number in court pleadings over several years. (2) The court held that Llamas is not exempt from paying IBP dues, as he claims, and that by using the same IBP number in pleadings for at least 6 years he misled the court and public about paying his dues, violating legal ethics rules. (3) Taking Llamas' advanced age into account, the court suspended him from practice for 1 year or until payment of back

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SANTOS V.

    LLAMAS
    Facts:

    This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues


    filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas It appears that Atty. Llamas, who
    for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and
    data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been
    using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of
    age, averred that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice without having paid his
    IBP dues. He likewise admits that, as appearing in the pleadings submitted by
    complainant to this Court, he indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in
    court, at least for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such was
    his IBP chapter membership and receipt number for the years in which those
    pleadings were filed. He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a "limited"
    practice and that he believes in good faith that he is exempt from the payment of
    taxes, such as income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, as a senior citizen since 1992.

    Issues:

    (1) Whether respondent is exempt from paying his yearly dues to the Integrated Bar of
    the Philippines.

    (2) Whether the 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.

    Held:

    (1) NO. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual
    dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if
    nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the
    delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not
    respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, While it is true that
    R.A. No. 7432, grants senior citizens "exemption from the payment of individual
    income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty
    level as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for
    that year," the exemption however does not include payment of membership or
    association dues.

    (2)YES. 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
    which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
    or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule
    10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
    doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

    Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings
    he filed in court indeed merits 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 year suspension
    from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is
    appropriate.

    You might also like