Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Santos JR Vs Atty. Llamas Digest2

The document summarizes a case regarding the misrepresentation of bar membership dues by Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. It finds that Llamas misled the court by using the same IBP number for at least 6 years, despite not paying membership dues. As a senior citizen, Llamas' exemption from taxes does not include exemption from bar membership dues. The court suspended Llamas from practice for 1 year or until payment of back dues, for violating conduct rules regarding unlawful and deceitful acts, and misleading the court.

Uploaded by

Christopher Advincula
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
2K views1 page

Santos JR Vs Atty. Llamas Digest2

The document summarizes a case regarding the misrepresentation of bar membership dues by Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. It finds that Llamas misled the court by using the same IBP number for at least 6 years, despite not paying membership dues. As a senior citizen, Llamas' exemption from taxes does not include exemption from bar membership dues. The court suspended Llamas from practice for 1 year or until payment of back dues, for violating conduct rules regarding unlawful and deceitful acts, and misleading the court.

Uploaded by

Christopher Advincula
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/ 1

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR.

, complainant
vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, respondent
Adm. Case No. 4749
322 SCRA 529
January 20, 2000

Misrepresentation and Non-payment of Bar Membership Dues

FACTS:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar
membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas.
In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997, complainant
Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a member of the bar, alleged 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 he is only engaged in a limited practice of law and under RA 7432,
as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in
this exemption, is the payment of membership dues.

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.

ISSUES: 
Whether or not 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 6 years
and therefore liable for his actions.

Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership


dues owing to limited practice of law and for being a senior citizen.

RULING:
Yes respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is suspended from the practice of
law for one (1) year, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later. 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, the
exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment of
membership or association dues.
In addition, by indicating 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 that
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.

Christopher P. Advincula JD 1
Basic Legal Ethics

You might also like