Scribd
Upload
204 views2 pages

Santos v. Llamas

(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

Uploaded by

jovani ema
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
204 views2 pages

Santos v. Llamas

(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

Uploaded by

jovani ema
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy