View full case

SAMUEL B. ARNADO v. ATTY. HOMOBONO A. ADAZA

FACTS:

This is an administrative case against Atty. Homobono A. Adaza (respondent) for his failure to comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) under Bar Matter No. 850. Complainant Atty. Samuel B. Arnado called the attention of the Court to the respondent's practice of indicating "MCLE application for exemption under process" in his pleadings filed from 2009 to 2012. Complainant inquired about the respondent's compliance and received a certification from Prof. Myrna S. Feliciano, the MCLE's Executive Director, stating that the respondent did not comply with the MCLE requirements for the first, second, and third compliance periods. The MCLE Governing Board denied the respondent's application for exemption in January 2009. The case was referred to the MCLE Committee for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The MCLE Governing Board's evaluation, report, and recommendation stated that the respondent applied for exemption for the first and second compliance periods but did not apply for exemption or comply with the third compliance period. The Court directed the respondent to file a comment on the complaint. In his compliance and comment, the respondent claimed that he did not receive a copy of the letter forwarding the case to the Court and alleged political reasons for the denial of his application for exemption. He also enumerated his achievements as a lawyer and requested reconsideration or an exemption from MCLE compliance. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) evaluated the respondent's compliance and report, and the OBC found that the respondent failed to meet the requirements for exemption and failed to file a motion for reconsideration. The OBC also stated that non-compliance with the MCLE requirements may result in the dismissal of the case and the striking out of the pleadings from the records. The MCLE Governing Board recommended that cases be filed against the respondent.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent is administratively liable for his failure to comply with the MCLE requirements.

  2. Whether Atty. Adaza should be exempted from complying with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements.

  3. Whether Atty. Adaza should be declared as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and suspended from the practice of law.

  4. Whether or not Atty. Homobono A. Adaza violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. Whether or not the imposition of disciplinary sanctions is warranted.

RULING:

  1. The respondent is administratively liable for his failure to comply with the MCLE requirements. Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to undergo continuing legal education to maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law. The respondent failed to comply with the MCLE requirements for four compliance periods, and his application for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods was filed after the compliance periods had ended. Additionally, the MCLE Governing Board denied his application for exemption and the denial was not conveyed to the respondent. Further, the respondent did not comply with the Fourth Compliance Period. Non-compliance with the MCLE requirements is considered a violation and may result in the dismissal of cases and striking out of pleadings from the records.

  2. The Supreme Court denies Atty. Adaza's prayer to be exempted from MCLE compliance as his application for exemption had already been denied by the MCLE Governing Board. The Court notes Atty. Adaza's lackadaisical attitude towards complying with the MCLE requirements and emphasizes that he cannot practice law until he submits proof of compliance with the MCLE requirements.

  3. The Supreme Court declares Atty. Adaza as a delinquent member of the IBP and suspends him from the practice of law for six months or until he fully complies with the MCLE requirements for the relevant compliance periods and pays the necessary fees.

  4. Atty. Homobono A. Adaza violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by making baseless and unverified accusations against petitioners and by using intemperate language and derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and its members.

  5. The Court finds that the imposition of disciplinary sanctions is warranted to maintain the dignity, integrity, and impartiality of the legal profession. Hence, Atty. Adaza is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Compliance with the MCLE requirements is mandatory for lawyers to maintain the ethics of the legal profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.

  • Failure to comply with the MCLE requirements can result in administrative liability and may jeopardize the causes of clients as the pleadings filed can be stricken off from the records and considered invalid.

  • Applications for exemption from the MCLE requirements must be filed within the prescribed period and must meet the requirements set forth by the MCLE Governing Board.

  • Failure to receive notification or denial of an application for exemption does not excuse non-compliance with the MCLE requirements.

  • Non-compliance with the MCLE requirements may be considered an act or omission intended to circumvent or evade compliance, which is prohibited under the MCLE Implementing Regulations.

  • Failure to comply with MCLE requirements and disregard for the directives of the MCLE Office may result in the delinquency and suspension of an attorney.

  • The Supreme Court, using its administrative power and supervision, has the authority to discipline lawyers and direct the IBP Board of Governors to declare lawyers as delinquent members of the IBP.

  • The MCLE Office should promptly act on matters requiring attention and communicate its actions to the concerned parties within a reasonable period.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in any conduct that tends to discredit or dishonor the legal profession (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility).

  • Lawyers are mandated to maintain the respectful attitude and language towards the courts, their officers, and the opposing parties (Rule 11.03, Code of Professional Responsibility).

  • The Court has the power and duty to discipline attorneys for misconduct committed in their professional capacity (Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court).