CANONS 1 to 6
One of these
CHAPTER 1 – THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTIUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND, AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
01. Bongalonta v. Castillo
Facts
In a sworn letter-complaint dated
February 15, 1995, addressed to the
Commission on Bar Discipline, National
Grievance Investigation Office,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
complainant Sally Bongalonta charged
Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M.
Martija, members of the Philippine Bar,
with unjust and unethical conduct, to
wit: representing conflicting interests
and abetting a scheme to frustrate the
execution or satisfaction of a judgment
which complainant might obtain.
Complainant filed cases with the RTC
against spouses Abuel. (Criminal- estafa
and Civil- preliminary attachment or
notice of levy of a lien of a piece of land
owned by the spouses favorable to
complainant.) Atty. Pablito Castillo was
the counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the
aforesaid criminal and civil cases.
During the pendency of these cases, one
Gregorio Lantin filed a civil case for
collection of a sum of money based on a
promissory note, also with the RTC,
against the Sps. Abuel. In the said case
Gregorio Lantin was represented by
Atty. Alfonso Martija.
It is further alleged that in all the
pleadings filed in these three (3)
aforementioned cases, Atty. Pablito
Ruling
IBP: The notice of levy in favor of
Bongalonta and her husband is a
superior lien on the said registered
property of the Abuel spouses over that
of Gregorio Lantin.
Consequently, the charge against the
two respondents (i.e. representing
conflicting interests and abetting a
scheme to frustrate the execution or
satisfaction of a judgment which
Bongalonta and her husband might
obtain against the Abuel spouses) has no
leg to stand on.
However, as to the fact that indeed the
two respondents placed in their
appearances and in their pleadings the
same IBP No., respondent Atty. Pablito
M. Castillo deserves to be
SUSPENDED for using, apparently thru
his negligence, the IBP official receipt
number of respondent Atty. Alfonso M.
Martija. Use by counsel of another’s
IBP receipt number constitutes
falsehood.
SC agrees with IBP.
the practice of law is not a right but a
privilege bestowed by the State on those
who show that they possess, and
continue to possess, the qualifications
required by law for the conferment of
Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija
placed the same address, the same PTR
and the same IBP receipt number.
Complainant: The civil case filed by
Gregorio Lantin was merely a part of the
scheme of the Sps. Abuel to frustrate the
satisfaction of the money judgment
which complainant might obtain in her
civil case.
Respondent Castillo: Fault of his
secretary.
Topic: Lawyer’s Oath (Do no
falsehood)
02. Moreno v. Araneta
Facts
Before this Court is a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Ernesto S.
Araneta for deceit and nonpayment of
debts.
The complaint, dated 25 September
1972, was filed in this Court by Maria
Elena Moreno on two causes of action.
The first cause of action involved
Treasury Warrant No. B- 02997354
issued by the LRC in favor of Lira, Inc.,
and indorsed by Araneta (respondent),
purportedly as president of the said
corporation, to Moreno, in consideration
of the amount of P2,177. The complaint
alleged that almost a year later, the
warrant was dishonored.
The second cause of action involved
Araneta's nonpayment of debts in the
amount of P11,000, which he assured
and promised to that he would return the
said amount within the shortest possible
time. He failed to make do of his
such privilege.
requirements is the observance of
honesty and candor. Courts are entitled
to expect only complete candor and
honesty from the lawyers appearing and
pleading before them. A lawyer, on the
other hand, has the fundamental duty to
satisfy that expectation. For this reason,
he is required to swear to do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court.
Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty of
committing a falsehood in violation of
his lawyer's oath and of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
IBP (Commissioner Buencamino): The
evidence of the complainant was not
formally offered in evidence. There is
no evidence of a letter of the
complainant informing the respondent
about the "stop payment" or even any
written demand by the complainant to
the respondent that the payment of the
treasury warrant having been "stopped"
he should reimburse her with what he
received as consideration for this check.
Same considered, there is no cause to
fault the respondent for the first cause of
action.
On the other hand, the respondent
admits having issued the two checks to
the complainant for her to show to her
creditors that money was coming her
way, when in fact he is presumed to
have been aware when he issued said
checks that his account with the bank
against which checks were drawn was
already closed, as was discovered from
promises. Respondent issued checks in
favor of complainant, but the same was
dishonored and marked “Bank Closed.”
Respondent: Complainant borrowed
from him through the treasury warrant
(first cause) as attorney’s fees. He
denied borrowing any amount from
Moreno. He admitted that he issued the
two undated checks in her favor, but
maintains that he had no intention of
negotiating them. He avers that he gave
them to Moreno, allegedly upon her
request, only so she could show the bank
where she was working that she "had
money coming to her."
Complainant: The check for P11,000
"belonged" to the Philippine Leasing
Corporation, which she managed when
her father passed away. She claimed she
signed the check in blank sometime in
1969 when she fell seriously ill and gave
them to Araneta who was then helping
her in the management of the
corporation. She concluded that Araneta
falsely filled up the check "in a
desperate bid to turn the tables on her."
Topic: Moral Turpitude
the fact that the checks were dishonored
for said reason.
However beneficial it may have been to
the complainant, this act of the
respondent as a lawyer is abhorrent and
against the exacting standards of
morality and decency required of a
member of the Bar.
Recommendation: Suspension for 3
months.
IBP Board of Governors: Agree, but
increase to 6 months.
SC: Agree except penalty.
Although BP Blg. 22 had not yet been
passed at that time, the IBP correctly
found this act "abhorrent and against the
exacting standards of morality and
decency required of a member of the
Bar," which "belittles the confidence of
the public in him and reflects upon his
integrity and morality."
Indeed, in recent cases, we have held
that the issuance of worthless checks
constitutes gross misconduct, as the
effect "transcends the private interests of
the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of
the community at large. The mischief it
creates is not only a wrong to the payee
or holder, but also an injury to the
public" since the circulation of valueless
commercial papers "can very well
pollute the channels of trade and
commerce, injure the banking system
and eventually hurt the welfare of
society and the public interest. It is a
manifestation of moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude "includes everything
03. Abella v. Barrios, Jr.
Facts
An administrative complaint filed by
Eduardo A. Abella against Ricardo G.
Barrios, Jr., for disbarment, averring that
respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility for (a)
soliciting money from complainant in
exchange for a favorable resolution; and
(b) issuing a wrong decision to give
benefit and advantage to PT&T.
On January 21, 1999, complainant filed
an illegal dismissal case against
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone
Corporation (PT&T) before the Cebu
City Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB)
of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). Finding merit in
the complaint, Labor Arbiter ordered
PT&T to pay complainant P113,100.00
as separation pay and P73,608.00 as
backwages. PT&T appealed.
NLRC set aside LA Carreon's ruling and
instead ordered PT&T to reinstate
complainant to his former position and
pay him backwages, as well as 13th
which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals." 24 It
involves "an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a
man owes his fellow men, or to society
in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty
between man and woman, or conduct
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals."
Respondent Araneta is disbarred and his
name is ordered stricken from the roll of
attorneys.
Ruling
IBP (Commissioner Limpingco):
respondent tried to twist the meaning of
the CA Decision out of all logical,
reasonable and grammatical context in
order to favor PT&T. Notwithstanding
their agreement, immoral and illegal as
it was, respondent later went as far as
turning the proceedings into some
bidding war which eventually resulted
into a resolution in favor of PT&T. In
this regard, respondent was found to be
guilty of gross immorality.
Recommendation: disbarment.
SC: The above-cited rules, which are
contained under Chapter 1 of the Code,
delineate the lawyer's responsibility to
society: Rule 1.01 engraves the
overriding prohibition against lawyers
from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers
from encouraging any suit or proceeding
or delaying any man's cause for any
corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile,
month pay and service incentive leave
pay, including moral damages and
attorney's fees. On reconsideration, it
modified the amounts of the aforesaid
monetary awards but still maintained
that complainant was illegally
dismissed.
September 18, 2003, CA affirmed the
NLRC's ruling with modification,
ordering PT&T to pay complainant
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
July 19, 2004, the CA Decision became
final and executor
October 25, 2004, complainant filed a
Writ of Execution for the enforcement
of CA’s judgment. At this point, the
case had already been assigned to the
new LA (respondent). Complainant
went to respondent’s office to follow-up
on the matter and figured the former’s
monetary awards, but their values
differed.
November 7, 2005, respondent issued a
writ of execution, where the monetary
awards were reduced to the effect that it
modifies the decision of the CA.
Respondent: denied the accusations,
maintaining that he merely implemented
the CA Decision which did not provide
for the payment of backwages. He also
claimed that he never demanded a single
centavo from complainant as it was in
fact the latter who offered him the
amount of P50,000.00.
Issue: Whether respondent is guilty of
gross immorality for his violation of
Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule
6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
Topics: Code of Professional
Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to
lawyers in government service,
enjoining them from using one's public
position to: (1) promote private
interests; (2) advance private interests;
or (3) allow private interests to interfere
with public duties.
Records show that respondent was
merely tasked to re-compute the
monetary awards due to the complainant
who sought to execute the CA Decision
which had already been final and
executory. He tried to distort the
findings of the CA.
Court agrees with IBP regarding
respondent’s gross immorality and
observes that his infractions constitute
gross misconduct.
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral
conduct involves acts that are willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the
upright and respectable members of the
community. It treads the line of
grossness when it is so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree, or when committed under
such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the
community's sense of decency. On the
other hand, gross misconduct
constitutes "improper or wrong conduct,
the transgression of some established
and de1nite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent
and not mere error of judgment.
Court deems it proper to, instead of
disbarring him again, impose a fine in
the amount of P40,000.00 in order to
Responsibility, Practice of Law
CANON 2 – A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES
AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
04. Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.
Facts
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the
respondent to cease and desist from
issuing advertisements||| pertaining to
the exercise of the law profession other
than those allowed by law.|||
Petitioner: The advertisements are
champertous, unethical, demeaning of
the law profession, and destructive of
the confidence of the community in the
integrity of the members of the bar and
that, as a member of the legal
profession, he is ashamed and offended
by the said advertisements.
penalize respondent's transgressions as
discussed herein and to equally deter the
commission of the same or similar acts
in the future.
The practice of law is a privilege
accorded only to those who continue to
meet its exacting quali1cations. Verily,
for all the prestige and opportunity
which the profession brings lies the
greater responsibility to uphold its
integrity and honor. Towards this
purpose, it is quintessential that its
members continuously and
unwaveringly exhibit, preserve and
protect moral uprightness in their
activities, both in their legal practice as
well as in their personal lives. Truth be
told, the Bar holds no place for the
deceitful, immoral and corrupt.
Ruling
Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the
practice of law however, such practice is
not allowed. The Legal Clinic is
composed mainly of paralegals. The
services it offered include various legal
problems wherein a client may avail of
legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and
corporate undertakings. Most of these
services are undoubtedly beyond the
domain of paralegals, but rather, are
exclusive functions of lawyers engaged
in the practice of law. Under Philippine
jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute
Respondent: Admits the fact of
publication of said advertisements at its
instance, but claims that it is not
engaged in the practice of law but in the
rendering of "legal support services"
through paralegals with the use of
modern computers and electronic
machines.
IBP: Its name connotes the rendering of
legal services for legal problems, and
connotes lawyers. The advertisements in
question are meant to induce the
performance of acts contrary to law,
morals, public order and public policy. It
suggests that Filipinos can avoid the
legal consequences of a marriage and
secret marriages. Recommendation:
Restrain respondents from undertaking
highly unethical activities.
PBA: Respondent's acts of holding out
itself to the public under the trade name
"The Legal Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting
employment for its enumerated services
fall within the realm of a practice which
thus yields itself to the regulatory
powers of the Supreme Court. The
practice of law is a personal right
limited to persons who have qualified
themselves under the law. It follows that
not only respondent but also all the
persons who are acting for respondent
are the persons engaged in unethical law
practice.
PLA: Respondent is engaged in
unauthorized practice of law and the
advertisements complained of are not
only unethical, but also misleading and
patently immoral. The Honorable
Supreme Court has the power to
suppress and punish the Legal Clinic
and its corporate officers.
practice of law cannot be performed by
paralegals. Only a person duly admitted
as a member of the bar and who is in
good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the
questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. The standards of the
legal profession condemn the lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of
his profession, advertise his talents or
skills as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods.
Further, the advertisements of Legal
Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret
marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their
experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which
forms of advertisement are allowed. The
best advertising possible for a lawyer is
a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to
trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct. Good
and efficient service to a client as well
as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public
attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to
generate it and to magnify his success.
He easily sees the difference between a
normal by-product of able service and
the unwholesome result of propaganda.
The Supreme Court also enumerated the
UP Women Lawyers’ Circle:
Paramount consideration should be
given to the protection of the general
public from the danger of being 1.
exploited by unqualified persons or 2.
entities who may be engaged in the
practice of law and from the dangers3.
which may be brought about by
advertising of legal services.
Issues: (1) Whether or not the services
offered by respondent as advertised by it
constitutes practice of law and, (2)
Whether the same can properly be the
subject of the advertisements herein
complained of.
Topics: Practice of Law, Advertisement
of Legal Practice
05. Villatuya v.Tabalingcos
Facts
In a complaint for disbarment,
complainant Manuel G. Villatuya
charges Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos
(respondent) with unlawful solicitation
of cases, violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for
nonpayment of fees to complainant, and
gross immorality for marrying two other
women while respondent's first marriage
was subsisting.
Complainant: February 2002, he was
employed by respondent as a financial
consultant to assist the latter on
technical and financial matters in the
latter's numerous petitions for corporate
rehabilitation 1led with different courts.
Complainant claimed that they had a
verbal agreement whereby he would be
entitled to a sum from the fees.
Respondent engaged in unlawful
following as allowed forms of
advertisement:
1.) Advertisement in a reputable law list
2.) Use of ordinary simple professional
card
3.) Listing in a phone directory but
without designation as to his
specialization
Ruling
IBP: (1) The charge should have been
filed with the proper courts since it was
only empowered to determine
respondent's administrative liability. On
this matter, complainant failed to prove
dishonesty on the part of respondent.
(2) Respondent have violated the rule on
the solicitation of client for having
advertised his legal services and
unlawfully solicited cases. It
recommended that he be reprimanded
for the violation. It failed, though, to
point out exactly the specific provision
he violated.
(3) Respondent is guilty of gross
immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and
7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court. It found that
solicitation of cases in violation of
Section 27 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Complainant accused
respondent of committing two counts of
bigamy for having married two other
women while his first marriage was
subsisting. He submitted Certifications.
Respondent: Denied the charges.
Complainant was not an employee of his
law firm. Complainant was
unprofessional and incompetent in
performing his job as a financial
consultant, resulting in the latter's
dismissal of many rehabilitation plans
they presented in their court cases.
There was no verbal agreement between
them regarding the payment of fees and
the sharing of professional fees paid by
his clients. He proffered documents
showing that the salary of complainant
had been paid. He also contended that
his firm was handling the legal aspect of
the cases while the complainant’s firm
(Jesi) was handling the financial aspect.
Respondent did not speci1cally address
the allegations regarding his alleged
bigamous marriages with two other
women.
Issues: (1) Whether respondent violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility
by nonpayment of fees to complainant,
(2) Whether respondent violated the rule
against unlawful solicitation, and (3)
Whether respondent is guilty of gross
immoral conduct for having married
thrice.
Topics: Dishonesty, Unlawful
Solicitation and Advertisement, and
Disbarment
complainant was able to prove through
documentary evidence that respondent
committed bigamy twice by marrying
two other women while the latter's 1rst
marriage was subsisting. Due to the
gravity of the acts of respondent, the
Commission recommended that he be
disbarred, and that his name be stricken
off the roll of attorneys.
SC: IBP recommendations affirmed.
(1) Nonpayment of the former's share in
the fees, if proven to be true is based on
an agreement that is violative of Rule
9.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed
by the Code to divide or agree to divide
the fees for legal services rendered with
a person not licensed to practice law.
Complainant failed to show convincing
evidence.
(2) Respondent indeed used the business
entities mentioned in the report to solicit
clients and to advertise his legal
services, purporting to be specialized in
corporate rehabilitation cases. Based on
the facts of the case, he violated Rule
2.03 of the Code, which prohibits
lawyers from soliciting cases for the
purpose of profit.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that
the lawyer is mandated to inform the
client whether the former is acting as a
lawyer or in another capacity. This duty
is a must in those occupations related to
the practice of law. The reason is that
certain ethical considerations governing
the attorney-client relationship may be
operative in one and not in the other.
(3) Respondent's regard for marriage
contracts as ordinary agreements
indicates either his wanton disregard of
the sanctity of marriage or his gross
ignorance of the law on what course of
action to take to annul a marriage under
the old Civil Code provisions.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack
of that degree of morality required of
him as a member of the bar. He made a
mockery of marriage, a sacred
institution demanding respect and
dignity. His acts of committing bigamy
twice constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court.
Respondent’s charge of dishonesty is
dismissed, charge of illegal
advertisement and solicitation is
reprimanded, him disbarred for
engaging in bigamy.
February 10, 2009
[B.M. No. 2012]
PROPOSED RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE FOR
PRACTICING LAWYERS
RESOLUTION
Acting on the Memorandum dated January 27, 2009 of Justice
Renato C. Corona re: Comment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on our
Suggested Revisions to the Proposed Rule of Mandatory Legal Aid Service for
Practicing Lawyers, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.
This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2009 following
publication of the said Rule and its implementing regulations in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
 RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE
SECTION 1. Title. — This Rule shall be known as "The Rule on
Mandatory Legal Aid Service". ITSCED
SECTION 2. Purpose. — This Rule seeks to enhance the duty of
lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts as officers
thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less privileged members of
society and expedite the resolution of cases involving them. Mandatory free
legal service by members of the bar and their active support thereof will aid the
efficient and effective administration of justice especially in cases involving
indigent and pauper litigants.
SECTION 3. Scope. — This Rule shall govern the mandatory
requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in all cases
(whether civil, criminal or administrative) involving indigent and pauper
litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall also govern the
duty of other members of the legal profession to support the legal aid program
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Rule:
(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who
appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law
and quasi-judicial agencies, including but not
limited to the National Labor Relations
Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation
Board, Department of Labor and Employment
Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board and National Commission for
Indigenous Peoples. The term "practicing lawyers"
shall exclude:
(i) Government employees and incumbent elective
officials not allowed by law to practice;
(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear
in court;
(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law
student practice in duly accredited legal
clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and
peoples' organizations (POs) like the Free
Legal Assistance Group who by the
nature of their work already render free
legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants;
and
(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to
(iii) including those who are employed in
the private sector but do not appear for
and in behalf of parties in courts of law
and quasi-judicial agencies.
(b) Indigent and pauper litigants are those defined under Rule
141, Section 19 of the Rules of Court and Algura v.
The Local Government Unit of the City of
Naga (G.R. No. 150135, 30 October 2006, 506
SCRA 81);
(c) Legal aid cases are those actions, disputes, and
controversies that are criminal, civil and
administrative in nature in whatever stage wherein
indigent and pauper litigants need legal
representation; TaDAIS
(d) Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or
quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent
or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings
or motions. It shall also cover assistance by a
practicing lawyer to indigent or poor litigants in
court-annexed mediation and in other modes of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Services
rendered when a practicing lawyer is appointed
counselde oficio shall also be considered as free
legal aid services and credited as compliance under
this Rule;
(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official
national organization of lawyers in the country;
(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the
committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked
with handling legal aid cases;
(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of
the IBP which is specifically tasked with
disciplining members of the Bar;
(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines located in the different geographical
areas of the country as defined in Rule 139-A; and
 (i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the
practicing lawyer rendered free legal aid services. In
the case of quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an
officer holding an equivalent or similar position.
The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position in
agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a responsible officer of an
accredited PO or NGO, or an accredited mediator who conducted the court-
annexed mediation proceeding.
SECTION 5. Requirements. —
(a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum
of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to
indigent litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be
spread within a period of twelve (12) months, with a
minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services
each month. However, where it is necessary for the
practicing lawyer to render legal aid service for
more than five (5) hours in one month, the excess
hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the
succeeding periods.
For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with
the Clerk of Court for cases where he may render
free legal aid service. He may also coordinate with
the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter
to inquire about cases where he may render free
legal aid service. In this connection, the IBP Legal
Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter shall regularly
and actively coordinate with the Clerk of
Court. cHSTEA
The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the
requirement within ten (10) days of the last month
of each quarter of the year.
(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain
a certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting to
the number of hours spent rendering free legal aid
services in a case. The certificate shall contain the
following information:
(i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was
rendered, the party or parties in the said
case(s) for whom the service was
rendered, the docket number of the said
case(s) and the date(s) the service was
rendered.
(ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a
hearing or conducting trial on a particular
case in the court or quasi-judicial body.
(iii) The number of hours actually spent attending
mediation, conciliation or any other mode
of ADR on a particular case.
(iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of
time to file a pleading or for
postponement of hearing or conference)
or pleading filed on a particular case shall
be considered as one (1) hour of service.
The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in
triplicate, one (1) copy to be retained by
the practicing lawyer, one (1) copy to be
retained by the Clerk of Court and one (1)
copy to be attached to the lawyer's
compliance report. DSEIcT
(c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal Aid
Chairperson of the IBP Chapter within the court's
jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson shall then
be tasked with immediately verifying the contents
of the certificate with the issuing Clerk of Court by
comparing the copy of the certificate attached to the
compliance report with the copy retained by the
Clerk of Court.
(d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a
compliance certificate to the concerned lawyer. The
IBP Chapter shall also submit the compliance
reports to the IBP's NCLA for recording and
documentation. The submission shall be made
within forty-five (45) days after the mandatory
submission of compliance reports by the practicing
lawyers.
(e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies
the number and date of issue of their certificate of
compliance 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. cDTSHE
(f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the
category under Section 4 (a) (i) and (ii), shall fill up
a form prepared by the NCLA which states that,
during that year, they are employed with the
government or incumbent elective officials not
allowed by law to practice or lawyers who by law
are not allowed to appear in court. The form shall
be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or
IBP National Office together with the payment of
an annual contribution of Two Thousand Pesos
(P2,000). Said contribution shall accrue to a special
fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid
program.
(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the
category under Section 4 (a) (iii) shall secure a
certification from the director of the legal clinic or
of the concerned NGO or PO to the effect that,
during that year, they have served as supervising
lawyers in a legal clinic or actively participated in
the NGO's or PO's free legal aid activities. The
certification shall be submitted to the IBP Chapter
or IBP National Office.
(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the
category under Section 4 (a) (iv) shall fill up a form
prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that
year, they are neither practicing lawyers nor
covered by Section (4) (a) (i) to (iii). The form shall
be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or
IBP National Office together with the payment of
an annual contribution of Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of
practicing lawyers who render mandatory free legal
aid services. Said contribution shall accrue to a
special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal
aid program.
(i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the
lawyer to a penalty of Two Thousand Pesos
(P2,000) for that year which amount shall also
accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program
of the IBP.
SECTION 6. NCLA. —
(a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid
committees of the IBP local chapters for the proper
handling and accounting of legal aid cases which
practicing lawyers can represent. CSDAIa
(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of
the Legal Aid Office with respect to the
coordination with Clerks of Court on legal aid cases
and the collation of certificates submitted by
practicing lawyers.
(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records
in compliance with this Rule.
(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate
to be issued by the Clerk of Court and forms
mentioned in Section 5 (e) and (g). CEDHTa
(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the
contributions and penalties that will be paid by
lawyers pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry
out the provisions of this Rule. For this purpose, it
shall annually submit an accounting to the IBP
Board of Governors. The accounting shall be
included by the IBP in its report to the Supreme
Court in connection with its request for the release
of the subsidy for its legal aid program.
SECTION 7. Penalties. —
(a) At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer
who fails to meet the minimum prescribed 60 hours
of legal aid service each year shall be required by
the IBP, through the NCLA, to explain why he was
unable to render the minimum prescribed number of
hours. If no explanation has been given or if the
NCLA finds the explanation unsatisfactory, the
NCLA shall make a report and recommendation to
the IBP Board of Governors that the erring lawyer
be declared a member of the IBP who is not in good
standing. Upon approval of the NCLA's
recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall
declare the erring lawyer as a member not in good
 standing. Notice thereof shall be furnished the
erring lawyer and the IBP Chapter which submitted
the lawyer's compliance report or the IBP Chapter
where the lawyer is registered, in case he did not
submit a compliance report. The notice to the
lawyer shall include a directive to pay Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000) penalty which shall
accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program
of the IBP.
(b) The "not in good standing" declaration shall be effective
for a period of three (3) months from the receipt of
the erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board
of Governors. During the said period, the lawyer
cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as
counsel. Provided, however, that the "not in good
standing" status shall subsist even after the lapse of
the three-month period until and unless the penalty
shall have been paid.
(c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this
Rule for at least three (3) consecutive years shall be
the subject of disciplinary proceedings to be
instituted motu proprio by the CBD. The said
proceedings shall afford the erring lawyer due
process in accordance with the rules of the CBD
and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If found
administratively liable, the penalty of suspension in
the practice of law for one (1) year shall be imposed
upon him. TCcDaE
(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form required
to be submitted under this Rule or any contents
thereof shall be administratively charged with
falsification and dishonesty and shall be subject to
disciplinary action by the CBD. This is without
prejudice to the filing of criminal charges against
the lawyer.
(e) The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof by
any Clerk of Court or by any Chairperson of the
Legal Aid Committee of the IBP local chapter
where the case is pending or by the Director of a
legal clinic or responsible officer of an NGO or PO
shall be a ground for an administrative case against
the said Clerk of Court or Chairperson. This is
without prejudice to the filing of the criminal and
administrative charges against the malfeasor.
SECTION 8. Credit for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE). — A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the
required number of hours in a year for the three year-period covered by a
compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following:
two (2) credit units for legal ethics, two (2) credit units for trial and pretrial
skills, two (2) credit units for alternative dispute resolution, four (4) credit units
for legal writing and oral advocacy, four (4) credit units for substantive and
procedural laws and jurisprudence and six (6) credit units for such subjects as
may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under Section 2 (g), Rule 2 of the
Rules on MCLE.
A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the
required number of hours in a year for at least two consecutive years within the
three year-period covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE
shall be credited the following: one (1) credit unit for legal ethics, one (1) credit
unit for trial and pretrial skills, one (1) credit unit for alternative dispute
resolution, two (2) credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, two (2)
credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and three (3)
credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee
under Section 2 (g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE. 1uplaw09
SECTION 9. Implementing Rules. — The IBP, through the NCLA, is
hereby given authority to recommend implementing regulations in determining
who are "practicing lawyers", what constitute "legal aid cases" and what
administrative procedures and financial safeguards which may be necessary
and proper in the implementation of this rule may be prescribed. It shall
coordinate with the various legal chapters in the crafting of the proposed
implementing regulations and, upon approval by the IBP Board of Governors,
the said implementing regulations shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
final approval.
SECTION 10. Effectivity. — This Rule and its implementing rules
shall take effect on July 1, 2009 after they have been published in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation. IESAac
Published in The Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer
on February 14, 2009.
||| (Proposed Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, B.M.
No. 2012, [February 10, 2009])
CANON 3 – A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES
SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
06. Khan, Jr. v. Simbillo
Facts
For advertising himself in several
leading newspapers as an "Annulment of
Marriage Specialist," Atty. Rizalino T.
Simbillo was charged for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal
services. Respondent admitted the act
imputed to him, but argued that
advertising and solicitation per se are
not prohibited acts.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G.
Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant
Court Administrator and Chief of the
Public Information Office, filed an
administrative complaint against Atty.
Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal
services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27
of the Rules of Court.
IBP: Respondent is guilty of violation
of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court,
and suspended him from the practice of
law for one (1) year with the warning
that a repetition of similar acts would be
dealt with more severely.
Topics: Advertisement of Legal
Services
Ruling
IBP recommendation affirmed.
The practice of law is not a business but
a profession in which duty to public
service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Although solicitation of
legal business is not altogether
proscribed, to be proper, it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession, made in a modest and
decorous manner that would bring no
injury to the lawyer and the bar.
The following elements distinguish the
legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the
emolument is a by-product, and in
which one may attain the highest
eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an "officer of the court"
to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and
reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest
degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar
characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current
business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or
dealing directly with their clients.
Here, for advertising himself as an
annulment of marriage specialist, Atty.
Simbillo undermined not only the
stability but also the sanctity of
marriage. Thus, for violation of Rules
2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court,
Atty. Simbillo was suspended from the
practice of law for one year, with stern
warning against repetition of the same or
similar offense.
CANON 4 – A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMET
OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS
IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
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
INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
October 2, 2001
EN BANC
B.M. No. 850
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and
reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal
Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the
following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
RULE 1
Purpose
 SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. — Continuing legal education is
required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure
that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence,
maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice
of law.
RULE 2
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. — Within two (2)
months from the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc,
the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall commence the
implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
program in accordance with these Rules.
SECTION 2. Requirements of Completion of MCLE. — Members of
the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least
thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the
MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal
ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units. cHSIAC
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial
skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative
dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on
substantive and procedural laws, and
jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing
and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit
units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law
and international conventions equivalent to two (2)
credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such
subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE
Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
RULE 3
Compliance Period
SECTION 1. Initial Compliance Period. — The initial compliance
period shall begin not later than three (3) months from the adoption of these
Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for members admitted or
readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall
be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the
previous compliance period. TECcHA
SECTION 2. Compliance Groups. — Members of the IBP not
exempt from the MCLE requirement shall be divided into three (3) compliance
groups, namely:
(a) Compliance group 1. — Members in the National Capital
Region (NCR) or Metro Manila are assigned to
Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. — Members in Luzon outside NCR
are assigned to Compliance Group 2.
(c) Compliance group 3. — Members in Visayas and
Mindanao are assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education
activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward compliance
with the MCLE requirement.
SECTION 3. Compliance Period of Members Admitted or
Readmitted After Establishment of the Program. — Members admitted or
readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the program shall be assigned
to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on
the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall
begin on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end
on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial
compliance period after admission or readmission,
the member is not required to comply with the
program requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial
compliance period after admission or readmission,
the member shall be required to complete
a number of hours of approved continuing legal
education activities equal to the number of months
remaining in the compliance period in which the
member is admitted or readmitted. Such member
shall be required to complete a number of hours of
education in legal ethics in proportion to
 the number of months remaining in the compliance AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND
2
period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the REVIEW
next whole number.
RULE 4 FULL CU FOR
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT PUBLISHED BOOK
THE SUBJECT
Computation of Credit Units (CU)
PER
SECTION 1. Guidelines. — CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT LESS THAN 100 PAGES COMPLIANCE
TO CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the MCLE PERIOD
requirement under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyer's participation 1/2 OF THE CU PUBLISHED BOOK WITH
2.2 BOOK EDITOR
in the MCLE activity. The following are the guidelines for computing credit OF PROOF AS
units and the supporting documents required therefor: AUTHORSHIP
EDITOR
CATEGORY
1/2 OF CU FOR DULY
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER
CREDIT SUPPORTING THE CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY TECHNICAL
UNITS DOCUMENTS INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER
REPORT/PAPER
COMPLIANCE
SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE CREATIVE PROJECT
1 PERIOD
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, 1/2 OF CU FOR
DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS 2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT PUBLISHED ARTICLE
THE
UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
RULES
COMPLIANCE
PERIOD
1 CU PER 1 CU PER
CERTIFICATE OF 2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ PUBLISHED
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ATTENDEE HOUR OF ISSUE
ATTENDANCE
ATTENDANCE LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
WITH NUMBER OF FULL CU FOR CERTIFICATION OF
HOURS 2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/
THE SUBJECT LAW DEAN OR
FULL CU FOR PHOTOCOPY OF PER
1.2 LECTURER
THE SUBJECT PLAQUE OR BAR REVIEW LECTURE COMPLIANCE BAR REVIEW DIRECTOR
PER PERIOD
SPONSOR'S
RESOURCE SPEAKER COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATION LAW TEACHING/
PERIOD
1/2 OF CU FOR
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR CERTIFICATION FROM
THE
RULE 5
SPONSORING
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER
ORGANIZATION Categories of Credit Units
COMPLIANCE
MODERATOR/ SECTION 1. Classes of Credit Units. — Credit units are either
PERIOD
participatory or non-participatory. AHCETa
COORDINATOR/
SECTION 2. Claim for Participatory Credit Units. — Participatory
FACILITATOR credit units may be claimed for:
 (a) Attending approved education activities like seminars,
conferences, conventions, symposia, in-house
education programs, workshops, dialogues or round
table discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist,
reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator,
coordinator or facilitator in approved education
activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SECTION 3. Claim for Non-Participatory Credit Units. — Non-
participatory credit units may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials
published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the
form of an article, chapter, book, or book review
which contribute to the legal education of the author
member, which were not prepared in the ordinary
course of the member's practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
RULE 6
Computation of Credit Hours (CH)
SECTION 1. Computation of Credit Hours. — Credit hours are
computed based on actual time spent in an education activity in hours to the
nearest one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
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.
SECTION 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. AHCaES
SECTION 3. Good Cause for Exemption from or Modification of
Requirement. — A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause
for exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad,
proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of any of
the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance
with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
SECTION 4. Change of status. — The compliance period shall begin
on the first day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under
Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other
members in the same Compliance Group.
 SECTION 5. Proof of Exemption. — Applications for exemption
from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and
supported by documents.
RULE 8
Standards for Approval of Education Activities
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE Program. — Subject to
the implementing regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee,
continuing legal education program may be granted approval in either of two
(2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider and certifies
that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider
is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.
SECTION 2. Standards for All Education Activities. — All
continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or
practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of
learning related to legal subjects and the legal
profession, including cross profession activities
(e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance
legal skills or the ability to practice law, as well as
subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with
adequate professional experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length,
substantive written materials must be distributed to
all participants. Such materials must be distributed
at or before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time
and location so as to be free from interruption like
telephone calls and other distractions.
RULE 9
Accreditation of Providers
SECTION 1. Accreditation of Providers. — Accreditation of
providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee. CSIDEc
SECTION 2. Requirements for Accreditation of Providers. — Any
person or group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years,
which may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing
legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to
be accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE
Committee;
(b) Contain all information requested in the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
SECTION 3. Requirements of All Providers. — All
approved accredited providers shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity
shall be maintained by the provider for at least four
(4) years after the completion date. The provider
shall include the member on the official record of
attendance only if the member's signature was
obtained at the time of attendance at the activity.
The official record of attendance shall contain the
member's name and number in the Roll of
Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location,
subject matter, and length of the education activity.
A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE
COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE
COMMITTEE in the amount of _______
hours of which _______ hours will apply
in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the
content of the activity; aTEACS
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for
approved education activities prescribed
by these Rules and such regulations as
may be prescribed by the MCLE
COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all
participants identifying the time, date, location,
subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all
approved continuing legal education activity by
THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP
Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee
 and IBP Staff Board for purposes of monitoring
compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the
nature of the activity, the time devoted to each topic
and identity of the instructors. The provider shall
make available to each participant a copy of THE
MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity
Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education
Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not less
than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished
the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized
activity under this program or issues a spurious
certificate in violation of these Rules shall be
subject to appropriate sanctions.
SECTION 4. Renewal of Provider Accreditation. — (including evidence of exempt status) within the
The accreditation of a provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be
denied if the provider fails to comply with any of the requirements of these
Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the preceding
period.
SECTION 5. Revocation of Provider Accreditation. —
The accreditation of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a
majority vote of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good
cause.
RULE 10
Fee for Approval of Activity and Accreditation of Provider
SECTION 1. Payment of Fees. — Application for approval of an
education activity or accreditation as a provider requires payment of the
appropriate fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees.
RULE 11
General Compliance Procedures
SECTION 1. Compliance Card. — Each member shall secure from
the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance
period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied
with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of
the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee
not later than the day after the end of the member's compliance period. ScaAET
SECTION 2. Member Record Keeping Requirement. — Each
member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy
furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to the
members by the provider pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule 9 should be a
sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-
participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in
Section 3 of Rule 5.
RULE 12
Non-Compliance Procedures
SECTION 1. What Constitutes Non-Compliance. — The following
shall constitute non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the
compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance
prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish
evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days
from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed
period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the
foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade
compliance with the MCLE requirements.
SECTION 2. Non-compliance Notice and 60-day Period to Attain
Compliance. — Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance
Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the
date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise
showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the
following language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY
(INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE),
YOU SHALL BE LISTED 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.
 Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-
Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the
adequate number of credit units for compliance.
Credit unitsearned 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. DCAEcS
RULE 13
Consequences of Non-Compliance
SECTION 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 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 3. Accrual of Membership Fee. — Membership fees shall
continue to accrue at the active rate against a member during the period he/she
is listed as a delinquent member.
RULE 14
Reinstatement
SECTION 1. Process. — The involuntary listing as a delinquent
member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of compliance
with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A
member may attain the necessary credit units to meet the requirement for the
period of non-compliance during the period the member is on inactive status.
These credit units may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance
period requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance in
excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement
may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
SECTION 2. Termination of Delinquent Listing is an Administrative
Process. — The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative
in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 15
Committee on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
SECTION 1. Composition. — The MCLE Committee shall be
composed of five (5) members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court
as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by the IBP, the
Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court
and associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and
integrity. They shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3)
years and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
SECTION 2. Duty of Committee. — The MCLE Committee shall
administer and adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary subject to
the approval of the Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board
of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with the approval of the
Supreme Court.
SECTION 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. — Subject to approval
by the Supreme Court, the MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as may be
necessary to perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and
other necessary functions. AacSTE
SECTION 4. Submission of Annual Budget. —
The MCLE Committee shall submit to the Supreme Court for approval, an
annual budget [for a subsidy] to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE
Program.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000,
following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the
Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on
02 October 2001.
||| (Adopting the Revised Rules on the Continuing Legal Education for Members of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, B.M. No. 850, [October 2, 2001])
 June 3, 2008 07. Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Lim
Facts
[B.M. No. 1922] Subject of the present controversy is a
parcel of land with an approximate area
of 4.4 hectares and located at Bignay,
Sirs/Mesdames: Valenzuela City. The property is
registered in the names of George and
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court Marilyn Lim (Spouses Lim).
En Banc dated June 3, 2008
"Bar Matter No. 1922. — Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory On September 8, 2004, Maria
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed Consolacion Rivera-Pascual
with the Courts the Counsel's MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate (Consolacion) filed before the Office of
of Exemption. — The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, the Regional Agrarian Reform
of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region IV-A
Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing a petition to be recognized as a tenant of
interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program. a property located at Bignay, Valenzuela
City against Danilo Deato (Deato).
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing During the pendency of the petition,
members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or Deato sold the property to Spouses Lim.
quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate The sale was registered on December
of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the 21, 2004 in favor of Spouses Lim.
immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the RARAD: Declared petitioner is the
pleadings from the records. tenant of the subject landholding by
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in succession from her deceased father, and
a newspaper of general circulation". Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., that she has a right to exercise the right
on official leave. (adv216a) of redemption of the subject parcel of
agricultural land pursuant to Section 12
of RA 3844 as amended.
Very truly yours,
She also filed a petition to order the
spouses to accept P10,000,000 as tender.
(SGD.) MA. LUISA DARAB: Reversed RARAD’s decision.
D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court CA: Petitioner’s counsel was required to
Supreme Court of the present his Mandatory Continuing Legal
Philippines Education (MCLE) Certificate of
Compliance or Exemption and an
Published in The Manila Bulletin on June 26, 2008. amended Verification and Certification
Against NonForum-Shopping pursuant
||| (Requirement to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel's to B.M. No. 1922, but failed to do so.
MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption, B.M. No. 1922, [June 3, 2008]) Petition dismissed.
Ruling
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. 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."
This Court will not condone a cavalier
attitude towards procedural rules. It is
 the duty of every member of the bar to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to
Petitioner: Alleged that procedural rules comply with these rules. They are not at appropriate penalty and disciplinary action"; and
or technicalities are designed to liberty to seek exceptions should they
(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of
facilitate the attainment of justice and fail to observe these rules and rationalize
current MCLE compliance/exemption number in the
their rigid application should be avoided their omission by harking on liberal
pleadings:
if this would frustrate rather than construction. While it is the negligence
promote substantial justice. of Consolacion's counsel that led to this (i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00
unfortunate result, she is bound by such. for the first offense, P3,000.00 for the
Topic: MCLE second offense and P4,000.00 for the third
Petition dismissed. offense;
(ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as
a delinquent member of the Bar pursuant
May 26, 2014
to Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No.
850 and its implementing rules and
regulations; and aSTcCE
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 79-14
(iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged
from the case and the client/s shall be
TO :The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals, Regional allowed to secure the services of a new
counsel with the concomitant right to
Trial Courts, Shari'a District Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts,
demand the return of fees already paid to
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal the non-compliant lawyer.
Circuit Trial Courts, Shari'a Circuit Courts, the Office of the State
Prosecutor, Public Attorney's Office and the Integrated Bar of the This revokes OCA Circular No. 66-2008 dated July 22, 2008, and
any prior circular from the Office of the Court Administrator on this matter
Philippines
which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby superseded.
For your information, guidance and strict compliance.

SUBJECT:Bar Matter No. 1922 (Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory

Continuing Legal Education [MCLE] Board to Indicate in All Pleadings JOSE MIDAS P.
Filed with the Courts the Counsel's MCLE Certificate of Compliance or MARQUEZ
Certificate of Exemption) Court Administrator
||| (Bar Matter No. 1922, OCA Circular No. 079-14, [May 26, 2014])

CANON 6 – THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN

In the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 14, 2014 in the
GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL
above-cited administrative matter, the Court RESOLVED, upon the
TASKS.
recommendation of the MCLE Governing Board, to:
(a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the 08. PCGG v. Sandiganbayan
phrase "Failure to disclose the required information would
cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the Facts Ruling
pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to In 1976 the General Bank and Trust The case at bar does not involve the
Company (GENBANK) encountered “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03.
financial difficulties. GENBANK had
extended considerable financial support
to Filcapital Development Corporation
causing it to incur daily overdrawings on
its current account with Central Bank.
Despite the mega loans, GENBANK
failed to recover from its financial woes.
The Central Bank issued a resolution
declaring GENBANK insolvent and
unable to resume business with safety to
its depositors, creditors and the general
public, and ordering its liquidation.
A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets
was held where Lucio Tan group
submitted the winning bid. Solicitor
General Estelito Mendoza filed a
petition with the CFI praying for the
assistance and supervision of the court
in GENBANK’s liquidation as
mandated by RA 265.
After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino
established the PCGG to recover the
alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres
Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant
to this mandate, the PCGG filed with the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for
reversion, reconveyance, restitution
against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al.
PCGG issued several writs of
sequestration on properties allegedly
acquired by them by taking advantage of
their close relationship and influence
with former Pres. Marcos. The
abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al
are represented as their counsel, former
Solicitor General Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify
respondent Mendoza as counsel for
respondents Tan et. al. with
Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that
Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded,
has no adverse interest problem when he
acted as SolGen and later as counsel of
respondents et.al. before the
Sandiganbayan. However there is still
the issue of whether there exists a
“congruent-interest conflict” sufficient
to disqualify respondent Mendoza from
representing respondents.
The key is unlocking the meaning of
“matter” and the metes and bounds of
“intervention” that he made on the
matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter”
or the act of respondent Mendoza as
SolGen involved in the case at bar is
“advising the Central Bank, on how to
proceed with the said bank’s liquidation
and even filing the petition for its
liquidation in CFI of Manila.
The Court held that the advice given by
respondent Mendoza on the procedure to
liquidate GENBANK is not the “matter”
contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. ABA
Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in
stressing that “drafting, enforcing or
interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations and laws, or
briefing abstract principles of law are
acts which do not fall within the scope
of the term “matter” and cannot
disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had
nothing to do with the decision of the
Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK.
He also did not participate in the sale of
GENBANK to Allied Bank.
The legality of the liquidation of
GENBANK is not an issue in the
sequestration cases. Indeed, the
jurisdiction of the PCGG does not
include the dissolution and liquidation
Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the
Central Bank actively intervened in the Code of Professional Responsibility
liquidation of GENBANK which was cannot apply to respondent Mendoza
subsequently acquired by respondents because his alleged intervention while
Tan et. al., which subsequently became SolGen is an intervention on a matter
Allied Banking Corporation. different from the matter involved in the
Civil case of sequestration in the metes
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule and bounds of the “intervention”.
6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits former The applicable meaning as the term is
government lawyers from accepting used in the Code of Professional Ethics
“engagement” or employment in is that it is an act of a person who has
connection with any matter in which he the power to influence the subject
had intervened while in the said service. proceedings. The evil sought to be
The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution remedied by the Code do not exist
denying PCGG’s motion to disqualify where the government lawyer does not
respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove act which can be considered as
the existence of an inconsistency innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing,
between respondent Mendoza’s former or interpreting government or agency
function as SolGen and his present procedures, regulations or laws or
employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan briefing abstract principles of law.”
group. PCGGs recourse to this court
assailing the Resolutions of the The court rules that the intervention of
Sandiganbayan. Mendoza is not significant and
substantial. He merely petitions that the
Topic: Former Gov’t Lawyers court gives assistance in the liquidation
Prohibited from Accepting Engagement/ of GENBANK. The role of court is not
Employment w/ a Matter in w/c He strictly as a court of justice but as an
Intervened in Said Service agent to assist the Central Bank in
determining the claims of creditors. In
such a proceeding the role of the SolGen
is not that of the usual court litigator
protecting the interest of government.
Petition denied.
Dissenting Opinion – Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A
lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ, should
not after his retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which he
has investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as a
vehicle to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his tenure on
certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this
restriction specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A plain
reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served in the
government and 2. relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the service.