Marilu is the petitioner in a special proceedings case in a Quezon City court, while Atty. Jose Caringal is the lawyer for the oppositor. In several pleadings filed by Atty. Caringal, he indicated the following MCLE informations: MCLE Exemption II & III Rec. No. 000659126 Pasig 8.10.10. Per verification by Marilu with the MCLE Office, she learned that Atty. Caringal had not attended the required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars for the Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III) Compliance Periods, which were from April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007 and April 25, 2007 to April 14, 2010 respectively, covered by a Certification from that office. As it turned out, the receipt Atty. Caringal pertained to was not for his MCLE exemption, but for his payment of the MCLE non-compliance fee
Marilu thus filed a complaint against Atty. Caringal for (1) failure to take the MCLE seminars for the MCLE II and III compliance periods as required under Bar Matter (BM) No. 850; and (2) violation of his lawyer’s oath not to do any falsehood.
In his defense, Atty. Caringal maintained that he took but was unable to comply the required units for MCLE I. He then took complete units for MCLE II, but the the MCLE Office erroneously applied said credits to his incomplete MCLE I, He thus on January 7, 2009, an “exemption fee” of PhP1,000.00[13] for his uncompleted MCLE I. Afterwards, on January 19, 2009, a Certificate of Compliancewas issued to Atty. Caringal for his completion of MCLE I. When he was informed that he still had lacking MCLE II units, he again paid the non-compliance fees for his MCLE II and III in the total amount of PhP2,000.00.
The Investigation Commissioner in his Report and Recommendatio, made the following findings: (1) Atty. Caringal failed to comply with the MCLE Requirements in a timely manner. (2) He alsely asserted he had an exemption from the MCLE requirement; and (3) He be reprimanded with a stern warning that repetition of same or similar acts or conduct shall be dealt with more severely
The IBP Board of Governors affirmed with modification the recommendation, so that it recommended that Atty. Caringal be suspended from the practice of law for three years, to which Atty. Caringal disaarees, and thus he filed his Petition for Review with the Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant agreed with the recommendation of the IBP
The Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Caringal should be held administratively liable for failure to comply with the MCLE requirement.
The Ruling:
Atty. Caringal’s Petition for Review is without merit.
The directive to comply with the MCLE requirements is essential for the legal profession, as enshrined in BM No. 850. The purpose is “to ensure that throughout [the IBP members’] career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.”
Turla was able to secure a Certification dated August 2, 2010 from the MCLE Office that Atty. Caringal, as of said date, had not yet complied with the requirements for MCLE II and III compliance periods. Despite being confronted with such Certification by Turla, Atty. Caringal continued to sign and submit pleadings and motions before various courts in several cases, indicating therein that he was “exempt” from the MCLE requirements and referring to the Official Receipt for his payment of the non-compliance fees.
In case a lawyer fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within the compliance period, Rule 13 of BM No. 850 lays down the following consequences:
SEC. 1. Non-compliance fee. – A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. – A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.
Section 12(c) to (e) of the MCLE Implementing Rules further provide as follows:
SEC. 12. Compliance Procedures
x x x x
| c. | If a lawyer fails to comply with any requirement under the Rules, the Committee will send him/her a notice of non-compliance on any of the following deficiencies: | |
| 1) | Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period; | |
| 2) | Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption; | |
| 3) | Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period; | |
| 4) | Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of a non-compliance notice; and | |
| 5) | Any other act or mission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements. | |
| d. | A member failing to comply with the continuing legal education requirement will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating his specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notification to explain the deficiency or otherwise show compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall be written in capital letters as follows: | |
| YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE, SHALL BE A CAUSE FOR LISTING YOU AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE. | ||
| The member may use the 60-day period to complete his compliance with the MCLE requirement. Credit units earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. | ||
| e. | A member who is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee of P1,000.00 and shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP by the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court shall apply. |
It is clear from the aforequoted provisions, which are simply and clearly worded, that a non-compliant lawyer must pay a non-compliance fee of PhP 1,000.00 and still comply with the MCLE requirements within a sixty (60)-day period, otherwise, he/she will be listed as a delinquent IBP member after investigation by the IBP-CBD and recommendation by the MCLE Committee. The non-compliance fee is a mere penalty imposed on the lawyer who fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within the compliance period and is in no way a grant of exemption from compliance to the lawyer who thus paid.
It is worthy to note that Atty. Caringal could not be declared a delinquent member as the sixty (60)-day period for compliance did not commence to run. There was no showing that he was ever issued and that he had actually received a Non-Compliance Notice as required by the MCLE Implementing Rules. In addition, by March 11, 2011,he had already complied with the MCLE requirements for MCLE II and III compliance periods, albeit belatedly.
Nevertheless, Atty. Caringal is being held liable for knowingly and willfully misrepresenting in the pleadings he had signed and submitted to the courts that he was exempted from MCLE II and III.
BM No. 1922, issued on June 3, 2008, required the practicing members of the IBP to indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. It also explicitly stated that “[f]ailure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.” In a Resolution dated January 14, 2014, in BM No. 1922, the Court amended the rules for non-disclosure of current MCLE compliance/exemption number in the pleadings, to wit:
(a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the phrase “Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records” and replacing it with “Failure to disclose the required information would subject, the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action”; and
(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of current MCLE compliance/exemption number in the pleadings:
| (i) | The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the first offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense and P4,000.00 for the third offense; |
| (ii) | In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and regulations; and |
| (iii) | The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client/s shall be allowed to secure the services of a new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the return of fees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer. |
Prior to its amendment on January 14, 2014, BM No. 1922 imposed a stiff penalty for a practicing lawyer’s failure to indicate the details of his/her MCLE Compliance/Exemption in the pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, i.e., the dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records, which, in effect, ultimately penalized said lawyer’s clients, too. Atty. Caringal, in this case, not only failed to indicate the necessary MCLE details in his pleadings and motions, but purposely stated therein the false information that he was exempted from MCLE II and III. As he had filed the subject pleadings in 2010, prior to the amendment of BM No. 1922 on January 14, 2014, he risked the dismissal of the cases and expunction of the pleadings and motions by the courts, to his clients’ detriment. In fact, as Turla mentioned, the pleadings which Atty. Caringal filed before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 59, in Civil Case No. 09-269, were indeed expunged from the records per the Order dated March 4, 2013 because of the false MCLE information he indicated therein.
Considering the foregoing, Atty. Caringal violated his sworn oath as a lawyer to “do no falsehood” as well as the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
When Atty. Caringal indicated that he was MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and motions he filed, although in fact he was not, he engaged in dishonest conduct which was also disrespectful of the courts. He undoubtedly placed his clients at risk, given that pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect[31] and can result in the expunction of the same. Undeniably, he did not stay true to the cause of his clients and actually violated his duty to serve his clients with competence and diligence.
The Court had previously pronounced that “[t]he appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.”Considering Atty. Caringal’s willful statement of false MCLE details in his pleadings to the prejudice of his clients, aggravate, by his lack of diligence in fully and promptly complying with the MCLE requirements within the compliance period, and his seemingly defiant and unremorseful attitude, the Court deems it apt to adopt the recommendations of both the IBP Board of Governors and the OBC, and imposes upon Atty. Caringal the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three years.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Jose M. Caringal as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their guidance and information.
SO ORDERED.
HERNANDO, J:
Bersamin, C. J., Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Carandang, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 11641, March 12, 2019, MARILU C. TURLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE M. CARINGAL, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.