Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Soliman Santos is a member of the Bar filed a complaint for
misrepresentation and non-payment of (membership dues against Atty. Francisco
Llamas.
Santos basis his claims on the grounds that: (1) Llamas has been
dismissed as Pasay City judge; and (2) his conviction for estafa.
Llamas contends that (1) his dismissal was reversed and set aside; (2)
that his principal occupation was a farm; (3) which he had declared in his income
Tax Return. And moreover, since he was a senior citizen, he was exempt in
paying (in pursuant to Sec 4, RA 7432), and that Llamas believed in good faith
that he is only allowed a limited practice.
ISSUE: WoN Llamas can be held administratively liable?
HELD: YES.
RATIO:
1. a lawyer by indicating by IBP-Rizal xxxx in his pleadings
thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his
IBP due, is guilty of violating:
a. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
b. Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all time uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
IBP.
c. C a n o n 1 0 - A l a w y e r o w e s c a n d o r, f a i r n e s s a n d
good faith to the Court
d. 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 an artifice.
2. A lawyers failure to pay his IPB dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings that he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty --HOWEVER, in view of Llamas advanced age, his express willingness to
pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the
Court held a penalty of 4 year suspension or until he paid his dues, as
appropriate.
GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS vs. NALDOZA
FACTS:
Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. filed a disbarment case against
Atty. Promo Naldoza, their former counsel.
Issue:
WoN Atty. Naldoza should be punished for his acts
Held:
Yes.
Atty. Primo Naldoza is DISBARRED not just suspended.
&ot onl) did he misappropriate the mone) entrusted to him he also fa ed
a reason to caDole his client to part !ithhis mone). 1orse he had the $all to falsif)
an official receipt of this Court to co,er up his misdeeds. Clearl) hedoes not
deser,e to continue (ein$ a mem(er of the (ar.