SANTOS 9 LLAMAS

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. Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor , fa i rness and good fa i th to the Cour t

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 lawyer’s 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.

Naldoza appealed a decision of POEA. In line with this, Gatchalian asserts that the disbarments should prosper since Naldoza committed the ff acts:

1. Appealing a decision, knowing that the same was already final and executor

2. Dece i t fu l l y  ob ta in ing   two   thousand,   f i ve  hundred  and   f i f t y -f i ve  US do l la rs   (US $2,555)   f rom complainant, allegedly for “cash bond” in the appealed case

3. Issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act.

Naldoza was claimed to ask for a “Cash Bond” in UNITED STATES amounting to TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (US $2,555) (for payment) to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court.

Gatcha l ian came to know tha t the re was no such Cash Bond pa id to the SC, and in fac t , the fees were on ly nominal (p6228). Moreover, the receipt that Naldoza presented to Gatchalian which allegedly emanated from the SC was spurious.

An estafa case was filed against Naldoza.  It was later on dismissed but he was held liable for the amount of US $2,555.

Naldoza seems that he not be suspended in the practice of law.

Issue: WoN Atty. Naldoza should be punished for his acts

Held: Yes. Atty. Primo Naldoza is DISBARRED not just suspended.

On the first issue: Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of

the appeal. either has there (een an)sho!in$ that the appeal !as dismissed on the $round that the <'"A 3ecision had (ecome final ande ecutor).  1orse there has (een no e,idence that respondent ne! that  the case !as unappeala(le./ndeed the records of this Court sho!s that the <etition for #e,ie! !as dismissed for petitioner?s7@atchalian?s8 failure to su(mit an Affida,it of Ser,ice and a le$i(le duplicate of the assailed 'rder.Clearl) this char$e has no le$ to stand on. • 'n the ne t t!o issues: o 1hen &aldo%a paid <40 000 and issued a chec to complainant as his

moral o(li$ation B he indirectl)admitted the char$e.  &ormall) this is not the actuation of one !ho is falsel) accused of appropriatin$the mone) of another. This is an admission of misconduct. 7#C &ote: &aldo%a claims that @atchaliano!es him <4;0T in attorne)s? fees and after accountin$ he  paid him <40T as his moral o(li$ation8

o the amount of b2 555 !as not a part of his attorne)?s lien.   e demanded

the mone) from his client onthe prete t that it !as needed for the <etition (efore the Supreme Court (ut he actuall) con,erted it tohis personal $ain.

• &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.