Arnado Vs Adaza

FACTS
(Report No. 1) Atty. Samuel Arnado called the attention of the Court to the practice of Atty. Homobono
Adaza (respondent) of indicating “MCLE application for exemption under process” in his pleadings filed
in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, and “MCLE Application for Exemption for Reconsideration” in a pleading
filed in 2012. Complainant informed the Court that he inquired from the MCLE Office about the status of
respondent's compliance, he learned that respondent did not comply with the requirements of Bar
Matter No. 850 for the First, Second, and Third Compliance Periods. When the case was referred to the
MCLE Committee for evaluation, report and recommendation, the Committee came out with its findings
that respondent applied for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods, on the ground of
“expertise in law”.
(Report No. 2) The MCLE Governing Board denied the request on January 14, 2009. The Court then
required the respondent to file his comment. In his comment, he alleged that he did not receive a copy
of the letter of the complainant, who belongs to the Romualdo and Arnaldo Law Office, the law office of
his political opponent, the Romualdo family. He then enumerated his achievements as a lawyer and
claimed that he had been practicing law for about 50 years. His achievements ranged from appearing as
counsels to several poetical personalities, writing books, becoming a public servant, and even refusing to
be appointeda Supreme Court justice.
(Report No. 3) In its report and recommendation, the Office of the Bar Confidant found that
“respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant stated
that respondent’s failure to comply with the MCLE requirements jeopardized the causes of his clients
because the pleadings he filed could be stricken off from the records and considered invalid.
(Report No. 4) The Office of the Bar Confidant reported that according to the MCLE Governing Board, "in
order to be exempted (from compliance) pursuant to expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar
Matter No.850, the applicant must submit sufficient, satisfactory and convincing proof to establish his
expertise in a certain area of law." The OBC reported that respondent failed to meet the requirements
necessary for the exemption.
(Report No. 5) The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that respondent be declared a delinquent
member of the Bar and guilty of non-compliance with the MCLE requirements. The Office of the Bar
Confidant further recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for six months with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
The OBC also recommended that respondent be directed to comply with the requirements set forth by
the MCLE Governing Board.”
ISSUE
(Report No. 6) Whether or not Atty. Adaza should be held administratively liable for failure to comply
with MCLE requirements?
RULING
(Report No. 7) Yes, Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and SUSPEND him from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS, or until he has fully complied
with the MCLE requirements for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance Periods.
Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education "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."
(Report No. 8) Clearly, respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities by failing to comply with Bar
Matter No. 850. His application for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods was filed
after the compliance periods had ended. He did not follow-up the status of his application for
exemption. He furnished the Court with his letter dated 7 February 2012 to the MCLE Office asking the
office to act on his application for exemption but alleged that his secretary failed to send it to the MCLE
Office. He did not comply with the Fourth Compliance Period.
(Report No. 9) Respondent's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and disregard of the
directives of the MCLE Office warrant his declaration as a delinquent member of the IBP. While the
MCLE Implementing Regulations state that the MCLE Committee should recommend to the IBP Board of
Governors the listing of a lawyer as a delinquent member, there is nothing that prevents the Court from
using its administrative power and supervision to discipline erring lawyers and from directing the IBP
Board of Governors o declare such lawyers as delinquent members of the IBP.
(Report No. 10) In addition, his listing as a delinquent member of the IBP is also akin to suspension
because he shall not be permitted to practice law until such time as he submits proof of full compliance
to the IBP Board of Governors, and the IBP Board of Governors has notified the MCLE Committee of his
reinstatement, under Section 14 of the MCLE Implementing Regulations. Hence, respondent is declared
as a delinquent member of the IBP and is suspended from the practice of law for six months or until he
has fully complied with the requirements of the MCLE for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth
Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid the required non-compliance and
reinstatement fees.

Arnado Vs Adaza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnado Vs Adaza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS

You might also like