Cases 43

43. LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y.
AREVALO, JR.,
Facts:
In his letter, dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the
amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after
being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July
1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the
year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the
Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one’s profession while in
government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.
Issue:
whether or nor petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he
was inactive in the practice of law
Ruling:
The supreme court held that the payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the
IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for
as long as one’s membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in.
There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment of membership dues. At
most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his
intention to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could have been
terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been discontinued.
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as
such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s
public responsibilities.
44. SANTOS JR VS LLAMAS

FACTS:
Atty. Francisco Llamas was complained of not paying his IBP dues.He was also cited in the complaint as
not paying his professional tax or PTR as it was intermittently indicated in his pleadings filed in court. It
was also an alleged falsity when he included his “IBP-Rizal 259060” where in fact he was not in good
standing. Petitioner cited that Atty. Llamas was dismissed as Pasay City Judge. But later revealed that the
decision was reversed and he was subsequently promoted as RTC Judge of Makati. He also had criminal
case involving estafabut was appealed pending in the Court of Appeals. In the numerous violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, he expressed willingness to settle the IBP dues and plea for a
more temperate application of the law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, or until he has paid his IBP
dues.
RATIO:
Even if he had “limited” practice of law, it does not relieve him of the duties such as payment of IBP
dues. Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule,
default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name
of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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 any artifice.
45.
Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006
Facts :Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary publicwho notarized the Occupancy
Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa thru falsification of public
document.
A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against respondent Atty.Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious
misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arose when
respondent Atty. Tansingco filed a counter-charge of perjury against Donton.Atty. Tansingco in his complaint stated
that he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement at the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and long-time
resident of a real property located at Cubao, Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and thereby disqualified to
own real property in his name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino.
Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement,
despite knowledge that Stier is a foreign national, constitutes serious misconduct and is adeliberate violation of the Code.
Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred.
Atty. Tansingco claimed that complainant Donton filed disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainant’s
counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he refused to act witness in the criminal case against Stier and Manggay. In
Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation and for which the latter, through Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP Commission of
Discipline recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years and cancellation of his commission as Notary
Public.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and recommended respondent’s suspension from the
practice of law for six months. The report was then forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court.
Issue
: Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct?
Ruling
: Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that a lawyer should
not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to
uphold and obey.
A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating law commits an act which justifies
disciplinary action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the
law against foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an
act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. As such, respondent is being
suspended for six (6) months.

Cases 43

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases 43

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases 43

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

43. LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y.

44. SANTOS JR VS LLAMAS

You might also like