CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING

LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS
WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.

Members of the IBP, except those exempt under Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850 (Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education), are required every 3 years to complete at least 36 hours of continuing legal education
activities, with appropriate penalties for failure to do so.

Canon 5

Bm 850 17 feb 2015

SirsAvlesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 17, z0ls,which reads
asfollows:

"8.M. No. 85o (Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Active Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines).- Acting on the Letter dated January 13, 2015 of Hon. Bernardo P.
Pardo, Chairperson, MCLE Governing Board, submitting for the Court's,approval the MCLE Governing
Board Resolution No. oo7-2ol4, the Court Resolved to REQUIRE all members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to file a written entry of appearance indicating their MCLE exemption or compliance number
for the current or immediately preceding compliance period and date of issuance thereof before
appearing as counsel or engaging in oral argument in open court or before a quasi-judicial body.
However, counsels who affixed their signatures in'their pleadings and indicated their MCLE exemption
or compliance number in their pleadings need not fiIe a separate entry of appearance. Henceforth, all
counsels, including partners of law firms whose names appear in the said pleadings, shall also indicate
their MCLB exemption or compliance number. ', This resolution shall take effect on March t, 2o1S
following its publicntion in a newspaper of general circulation." Brion, J., on leave. Jardelega, J., on
official leave.

Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS

SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar
are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the
Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the
Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the
Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
 (d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant
Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of
Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. - The following Members of the
Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the
IBP Board of Governors.

B.M. No. 1922 June 3, 2008

RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED

IN ALL PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 3, 2008

"Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. – The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2,
2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal
Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar
in the MCLE requirement program.

The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and
Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar 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. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of
the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

Sc reso 14 jan 2014

(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\

Judge. Manahan v flores

f:

-atty flores is the counsel for defense in a complaint for damages

-when he filed his pre-trial brief, he failed to indicate proof of MCLE compliance hence it was expunged
from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing the required MCLE
compliance

-prelim conference was reset several times due to the same acts of flores

-he later filed a manifestation tating among others, the following allegations:

xxxx

4. When you took your oath as member of the Bar, you promised to serve truth, justice and fair play. Do
you think you are being truthful, just and fair by serving a cheater?

5. Ignorance of the law excuses no one for which reason even Erap was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan.1âwphi1 But even worse is a lawyer who violates the law.

6. Last but not the least, God said Thou shall not lie. Again the Philippine Constitution commands: Give
every Filipino his due. The act of refusal by the plaintiff is violative of the foregoing divine and human
laws.
xx

-Respondent Atty. Flores later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number which was merely
superimposed without indicating the date and place of compliance.

-Atty. Flores manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. On
December 1, 2010, respondent Atty. Flores again failed to appear and to submit the said promised proof
of MCLE compliance.

-The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court by failing to
obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating
Judge recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year

-There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE
compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. "Court orders are to be respected not
because the judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration
that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. This is absolutely essential if our
Government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Respect must be had not because of the
incumbents to the positions, but because of the authority that vests in them. Disrespect to judicial
incumbents is disrespect to that branc the Government to which they belong, as well as to the State
which has instituted the judicial system.

-Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores
is expected to be circumspect in his language. Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility enjoins all attorneys to abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts. Atty. Flores failed in this respect.

-however 1st time offense in his law practice for half a century hence meted with the penalty of fine
amounting to 5k

rivera-pascual v spouses lim

f:

-Subject of the present controversy is a parcel of land with an approximate area of 4.4 hectares,
registered in the name of spouses lim

-pascual filed a petition before Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator to be recognized as a tenant of the
property

-regional adjudicator declaring that pascual is the tenant of the subject landholding by succession from
her deceased father

-on appeal by spouses lim before DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD said decision was reversed

1. DECLARING the landholding to be not lawfully redeemed;

2. DECLARING petitioner-appellee not a bona fide tenant of the subject landholding

-CA resolved to require Consolacion s counsel to submit within five (5) days from notice his Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance or Exemption and an amended Verification
and Certification Against Non-Forum-Shopping.18 Apparently, Consolacion s counsel failed to indicate in
the petition his MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption Number as required under Bar Matter No.
1922. Also, the jurat of Consolacion s verification and certification against non-forum-shopping failed to
indicate any competent evidence of Consolacion s identity apart from her community tax certificate.

-Considering the failure of Consolacion and her counsel to comply, the CA issued a Resolution19 on
October 15, 2009 dismissing the petition.

On July 7, 2009, the counsel for the petitioner received the above-mentioned Resolution. However, the
counsel for the petitioner failed to comply with the said Resolution which was due on July 19, 2009.

For failure of the counsel for the petitioner to comply with the Resolution dated July 1, 2009, despite
receipt of the notice thereof, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

-Consolacion is, before this Court, claiming that the CA s summary dismissal of her petition on technical
grounds is unwarranted.

H:

-The Court finds no merit in the petition. The Court sees no reversible error committed by the CA in
dismissing Consolacion s petition before it on the ground of petitioner s unexplained failure to comply
with basic procedural requirements attendant to the filing of a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court. Notably, Consolacion and her counsel remained obstinate despite the opportunity
afforded to them by the CA to rectify their lapses. While there was compliance, this took place,
however, after the CA had ordered the dismissal of Consolacion s petition and without reasonable cause
proffered to justify its belatedness. Consolacion and her counsel claimed inadvertence and negligence
but they did not explain the circumstances thereof. Absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested
leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules appears to be an afterthought, hence,
cannot be granted. The CA saw no compelling need meriting the relaxation of the rules. Neither does
this Court see any.

-The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally construed. However, in
these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a satisfactory and persuasive
explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy
burden of proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It was never the Court s intent "to forge
a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.