EN BANC
A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019
MARILU C. TURLA, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JOSE M. CARINGAL, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
This administrative case arose from a verified Complaint1 dated October 8, 2010 filed by Marilu C. Turla (Turla) against the respondent, Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal (Caringal), before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Turla is the petitioner in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 222, wherein Atty. Caringal is the counsel for the oppositor.
In July 2010, Turla discovered that Atty. Caringal2 had not attended thf 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. Turla confirmed such information when she received a Certification3 dated August 2, 2010 issued by the MCLE Office. Yet, Atty. Caringal signed the pleadings and motions in several cases on which he indicated the following information after his signature and other personal details: "MCLE Exemption II & III Rec. No. 000659126 Pasig 8.10.10."4 These pleadings and motions are particularly identified, viz.:
A. In Special Proceedings No. Q09-644 79 (RTC Quezon City, Branch 222)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.7
1) Motion to Remove Marilu Turla as Special Administratrix dated 2 September 2010; 2) Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Re-Schedule the Collection of Biological Sample dated 12 September 2010; 3) Motion to Issue Order Authorizing the National Bureau of Investigation to Examine the Birth Certificate of Petitioner dated 11 October 2010;
B. In Civil Case No. Q09-64850 (RTC Quezon City, Branch 221)
1) Comment On/Opposition to Motion to Expunge Pleadings dated 15 August 2010;
C. In Civil Case No. 09-269 (RTC Makati, Branch 59)
1) Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated 16 July 2010 dated 10 August 2010;5 2) Motion for Indefinite Suspension of Proceedings dated 17 July 2010; 3) Comment On/Opposition to Motion to Expunge Pleadings dated 15 August 2010;
D. In CA-G.R. SP No. 115847 (Court of Appeals)
1) Compliance dated 24 September 2010; 2) Comment On/Opposition to Petition for Certiorari dated 26 September 2010;
E. In CA-G.R. SR No. 117943 (Court of Appeals)
1) Petition for Certiorari dated 15 December 2010; and
F. In the Present Case
1) Answer to Complaint dated 13 November 2010.6
Respondent should have known that he could not merely pay to be exempted from the MCLE Requirement. First, as a lawyer he is obligated to keep abreast of legal developments. Second, Respondent's experience in the completion of MCLE for the First Compliance should have put him on notice that he had to complete thirty-six (36) hours per compliance period. Respondent narrated that after attending an MCLE course for the Second Compliance Period, the officer-in-charge applied the subjects to his uncompleted units [for] the First Compliance Period. Last, Complainant had raised the matter of MCLE in several pleadings. This should have forced Respondent to check the MCLE Requirements as provided in B.M. No. 850.20The Investigating Commissioner likewise noted that Atty. Caringal's failure to report his MCLE information placed the pleadings he signed on behalf of his clients at risk of expunction. Notwithstanding this, Atty. Caringal's liability is mitigated since he belatedly complied with the MCLE requirements. Even so, whether or not Atty. Caringal intended to mislead the court, he still had a duty to faithfully report his MCLE status but he failed to do so.
In a Resolution22 dated April 18, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the foregoing Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that Atty. Caringal be suspended from the practice of law for three years due to his failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and because of his misrepresentation that he had an MCLE exemption.
- Respondent failed to comply with the MCLE Requirements in a timely manner;
- Respondent falsely asserted he had an exemption from the MCLE requirement; and
- Respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that repetition of same or similar acts or conduct shall be dealt with more severely.21
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.Section 12(c) to (e) of the MCLE Implementing Rules further provide as follows:
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.
SEC. 12. Compliance ProceduresIt 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.
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.
(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"; andPrior 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 Order29 dated March 4, 2013 because of the false MCLE information he indicated therein.
(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.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.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 effect31 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.
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.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA | |
Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2 Roll Number 25207 of IBP Pasay-Parañaque-Las Piñas-Muntinlupa Chapter.
3Rollo, p. 7.
4Id. at 191.
5 Typographical error in the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
6Rollo, p. 192.
7Id. at 4.
8Id. at 2.
9 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.
10Section 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.
11Rollo, pp. 22-26.
12 This is actually a non-compliance fee.
13Rollo, p. 16.
14Id. at 17; MCLE Compliance No. 1-0016256.
15Id. at 18.
16Id. at 19.
17Id. at 190-201.
18 Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr.
19Rollo, p. 198.
20Id. at 200.
21Id. at 201.
22Id. at 189; CBD Case No. 10-2772.
23Id. at 236-237.
24Id. at 282-298A.
25Id. at 313.
26Id. at 323-331; Penned by Atty. Maria Celina S, Carungay-Sevillano and reviewed by Atty. Rosita M.R. Nacional, noted by Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant.
27 Bar Matter No. 850, Rule I, Section 1, October 2, 2001.
28 As found by the Investigating Commissioner. Complainant though alleged that the date is March 10, 2011.
29Rollo, pp. 223-224.
30 Lawyer's Oath.
31Mapalad, Sr. v. Atty. Echanez, A.C. No. 10911, June 6, 2017, 826 SCRA 57, 64 citing Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Atty. Maghari III, 768 Phil. 10, 35 (2015).
32Saunders v. Atty. Pagano-Calde, 766 Phil. 341, 350 (2015).