Amendment to Bar Matter No. 850 SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE.

- The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE
Republic of the Philippines requirements:
Supreme Court
EN BANC a) xxx;
b) xxx;
c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
Gentlemen: incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent
members of Judicial Bar Council, incumbent members of the
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Committee, incumbent
Court En Banc dated court lawyers who have availed of the Philippine Judicial Academy
programs of continuing judicial education
13 July 2004 d) xxx;
e) xxx;
“Bar Matter No. 850. – Re: Proposed Rules on Mandatory f) xxx;
Continuing Legal Education for Active Members of the IBP. – Acting g) xxx;
on the Letter dated 18 June 2003 of Chairperson Carolina C. Griño- h) xxx;
Aquino, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Committee (MCLE), i) xxx;
requesting for the exemption of incumbent members of the MCLE j) xxx;
Office from complying with the MCLE requirements and the k) xxx;
payment of the exemption fee, as well as the approval and l) xxx;
publication of the amendments to Bar Matter No. 850 and its
Implementing Regulations, the Court Resolved, upon the 2) Section 5, MCLE Implementing Regulations
recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education, to
Section 5. Exemptions
(a) APPROVE the proposed amendments to Bar Matter No. 850 and The following are exempted from the MCLE requirements:
its Implementing Regulations, thus:
a. The Executive
1.) Rule 7, Section 1, Bar Matter No. 850
1. xxx;
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS 2. xxx;
3. xxx;
4. xxx; (b) APPROVE the proposed MCLE Forms for the effective
5. xxx; Implementation of the MCLE program, to wit:

b. xxx. 1. MCLE Form No. 08 - Certificate of Exemption

c. The Judiciary
The Chief Justice and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court,
Incumbent and retired members of the Judiciary, incumbent
members of the Judicial and Bar Council incumbent members of
the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Committee, incumbent
court lawyers who have availed of the Philippine Judicial Academy
programs of continuing judicial education.
d. xxx
e. xxx
f. xxx
g. xxx.
2. MCLE Form No. 09 - Application for Exemption
3. MCLE Form No. 10 – Application for Credit Unit/s for
Participating
in MCLE Activity/Program as Lecturer/ Resource Speaker or
Panelist/ Reactor/ Commentator/ Moderator/
Coordinator/Facilitator
4. MCLE Form No. 11 – Application for Credit Unit/s for
Teaching
at an Accredited Law School
5. MCLE Form No. 12 – Application for Credit Unit/s for
Publication
of a Legal Article or Book
6. MCLE Form No. 13 – Certificate of Compliance

3) Section 12, MCLE Implementing Regulations and

Section 12. Compliance Procedures (c) direct the Office of the Clerk of Court to cause the publication of
the aforecited provisions of Bar Matter No. 850 and its
a. xxx, Implementing Regulations and the MCLE Forms for two (2)
b. xxx, consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.
c. xxx,
d. xxx, Very truly yours,

e. A member who is in non-compliance at the end of the LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee of P1,000.00 and Clerk of Court
shall be listed as a delinquent member of IBP Board of Governors
upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case By:
Rule 139-B of the Court shall apply.
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
 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.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation." Caprio-Morales Velasco, Jr.,
Nachura, JJ., on official leave. (adv216a)
A.C. No. 8954 November 13, 2013
HON. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN, Presiding Judge,
Municipal Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Respondent Atty. Rodolto Flores (Atty. Flores) was counsel for the
defendant in Civil Case No. 1863 captioned as Marsha Aranas plaintiff
versus Arnold Balmores defendant a suit for damages filed before the
Municipal Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal and presided by herein
complainant Judge Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan (Judge Manahan).
During the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1863, Judge Manahan issued
an Order1 dated January 12, 2011, whereby she voluntarily inhibited
from hearing Civil Case No. 1863. The said Order reads in part, viz:
More than mere contempt do his (Atty. Flores) unethical actuations,
his traits of dishonesty and discourtesy not only to his own brethren
in the legal profession, but also to the bench and judges, would
amount to grave misconduct, if not a malpractice of law, a serious
ground for disciplinary action of a member of the bar pursuant to
Rules 139 a & b.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, furnish a copy of this Order to the Bar Discipline
Committee, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to the Supreme Court
en banc, for appropriate investigation and sanction.2
Upon receipt of the copy of the above Order, the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) deemed the pronouncements of Judge Manahan as
a formal administrative Complaint against Atty. Flores. Docketed as
A.C. No. 8954, the case was referred to the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Rizal for investigation, report and
recommendation.3
In her Investigation, Report and Recommendation,4 Investigating
Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez (Investigating Judge) narrated the
antecedents of the case as follows:
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of San Mateo, Rizal docketed as Civil Case No. 1863, entitled
Marsha Aranas vs. Arnold Balmores. The Public Attorney’s Office
(PAO) thru Atty. Ferdinand P. Censon represented the complainant
while Atty. Rodolfo Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant.
x x x During the Preliminary Conference x x x, respondent Atty. Flores
entered his appearance and was given time to file a Pre-Trial Brief. x
x x On May 24, 2010, respondent Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief
but without 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. x x x Atty. Flores asked for
ten (10) days to submit proof.
The preliminary conference was reset several times (August 11,
September 8) for failure of respondent Atty. Flores to appear and
submit his Pre-Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance.
The court a quo likewise issued Orders dated September 15 and
October 20, 2010 giving respondent Atty. Flores a last chance to
submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so shall
be considered a waiver on his part.
Meanwhile, respondent Atty. Flores filed a Manifestation in Court
dated September 14, 2010 stating 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.1âwphi1But 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.
xxxx
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. During the preliminary conference on
November 24, 2010, respondent 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. In its stead,
respondent Atty. Flores filed a Letter of even date stating as follows:
If only to give your Honor another chance to prove your pro plaintiff
sentiment, I am hereby filing the attached Motion which you may
once more assign to the waste basket of nonchalance.
With the small respect that still remains, I have asked the defendant
to look for another lawyer to represent him for I am no longer
interested in this case because I feel I cannot do anything right in your
sala.5
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.6
The OBC adopted the findings and recommendation of the
Investigating Judge.7
Our Ruling
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."8
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.
At this juncture, it is well to remind respondent that:
While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client full
devotion to his client's genuine interest and warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his client's rights, as well as the exertion
of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of law. A lawyer is entitled to voice his c1iticism within the
context of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which
must be exercised responsibly. After all, every right carries with it the
corresponding obligation. Freedom is not freedom from
responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. The lawyer's fidelity
to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly
administration of justice. It must be done within the confines of
reason and common sense.9
However, we find the recommended penalty too harsh and not
commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. It
appears that this is the first infraction committed by respondent.
Also, we are not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty
of one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent
manifested before this Court that he has been in the practice of law
for half a century.10 Thus, he is already in his twilight years.
Considering the foregoing, we deem it proper to fine respondent in
the amount of ₱5,000.00 and to remind him to be more circumspect
in his acts and to obey and respect court processes.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Flores is FINED in the
amount of ₱5,000.00 with STERN WARNING that the repetition of a
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
 FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 191837 - September 19, 2012]
MARIA CONSOLACION RIVERA-
PASCUAL, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES MARILYN LIM and GEORGE
LIM and the REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF VALENZUELA
CITY, Respondents.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolutions
dated October 15, 20091 and March 11, 20102 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
109265.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
The facts leading to the filing of this petition are undisputed.
Subject of the present controversy is a parcel of land with an
approximate area of 4.4 hectares and located at Bignay, Valenzuela
City. The property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
V-73892, registered in the names of George and Marilyn Lim (Spouses
Lim).
On September 8, 2004, Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual
(Consolacion) filed before the Office of the Regional Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region IV-A a petition to be recognized as a
tenant of a property located at Bignay, Valenzuela City against Danilo
Deato (Deato). At that time, the property, which has an approximate
area of 4.4 hectares, was covered by TCT No. 24759 under Deato s
name. During the pendency of the petition, Deato sold the property
to Spouses Lim. The sale was registered on December 21, 2004
leading to the issuance of TCT No. V-73892 in favor of Spouses Lim.
Considering this development, Consolacion filed a motion on March
3, 2005 to implead Spouses Lim as respondents.3ςrνll
The petition, which was docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0400-0012-
04, was granted byRegional Adjudicator Conchita C. Miñas (RA
Miñas) in a Decision4 dated December 2, 2005, the dispositive
portion of which states: ¹brαrÿ
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring that petitioner is the tenant of the subject landholding
by succession from her deceased father;
2) Declaring respondents spouses George and Marilyn Lim to have
subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligation of spouses
Danilo and Divina Deato;
3) Ordering the respondents and all persons claiming rights under
them to maintain petitioner in peaceful possession and cultivation of
the agricultural land subject hereof;
4) Declaring petitioner to have the right to exercise the right of
redemption of the subject parcel of agricultural land pursuant to
Section 12 of RA 3844 as amended; and
5) Dismissing the petition against Louie Cruz, Fire Force Agency and
Danny Boy Rivera for having no proximate tenurial relationship with
the petitioner hence beyond the jurisdictional ambit of this Office.
SO ORDERED. rνlllibrary
On July 7, 2006, the foregoing decision became final. library
Upon Consolacion s motion for execution filed on January 7, 2008, RA
Miñas issued a writ of execution on January 8, 2008.7ςrνll
On January 21, 2008, Consolacion filed a petition against Spouses Lim
and the Registrar of Deeds of Valenzuela City praying for the issuance
of an order directing Spouses Lim to accept the amount
of P 10,000,000.00 which she undertook to tender during the initial
hearing, declaring the property redeemed, and cancelling TCT No. V-
73892.8 Consolacion consigned with the RARAD the amount
of P 10,000,000.00 on March 3, 2008.9ςrνll
Consolacion s petition, which was docketed as DARAB Case No. R-
0400-001-08, was given due course by RA Miñas in a
Decision10 dated June 2, 2008, the dispositive portion of which states:
lιbrαrÿ
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered:
1. As prayed for, declaring that the landholding subject of the petition
as lawfully redeemed;
2. Ordering respondent spouses to accept and withdraw the amount
of the redemption price consigned with this Office which was
deposited for safekeeping indicated in Manager s Check No.
0000004518 issued by Allied Bank in the name of Spouses Marilyn
and George Lim and/or DAR Adjudication Board Region IV-A in the
amount of ten (10) million pesos;
3. Upon acceptance and the withdrawal of the redemption price as
ordered in paragraph 2 hereof, ordering respondent spouses to
execute a Deed of Redemption in favor of petitioner;
4. In case of refusal and/or failure of respondent spouses to execute
the Deed of Redemption as ordered above, the Regional Clerk of the
Board is hereby ordered to execute a Deed of Redemption in the
name of the petitioner; and
5. Directing the Register of Deeds for Valenzuela City to cause the
cancellation of TCT No. V-73892 registered in the name of
respondent spouses Marilyn and George Lim and a new one issued in
the name of petitioner upon presentment of the Deed of
Redemption.
SO ORDERED. ‚rνlllaw library
On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) issued a Decision12 on February 18, 2009 reversing RA
Miñas Decision dated June 2, 2008. Specifically:Ïlιbrαrÿ
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision dated
02 June 2008 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is
hereby rendered: ±
1. DECLARING the landholding to be not lawfully redeemed;
2. DECLARING petitioner-appellee not a bona fide tenant of the
subject landholding;
3. DECLARING that petitioner-appellee cannot redeem the subject
parcel registered in the names of the respondents-appellants;
4. ORDERING the respondents-appellants to be maintained in
peaceful possession of the subject landholding; andy
5. DIRECTING the Clerk of the Board of the Regional Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator of Region IV-A to return the Manager s Check No.
0000004518 issued by Allied Bank in the name of Spouses Marilyn
and George Lim and/or DAR Adjudication Board Region IV-A in the
amount of Ten Million pesos to herein petitioner-appellee.
SO ORDERED.virtual law library
On April 13, 2009, Consolacion moved for reconsideration,14 which
the DARAB denied in a Resolution15 dated June 8, 2009 for being filed
out of time.ςηαñlιbrαrÿ
SECTION 12 Rule X of the 2003 DARAB Rules provides that a Motion
for Reconsideration shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of notice of the order, resolution, or decision of the Board or
Adjudicator. Records show that both the petitioner-appellee and her
counsel received a copy of the Decision dated 18 February 2009 on
27 February 2009 and that Legal Officer Nancy Geocada, the alleged
new counsel of the herein petitioner-appellee, filed the Motion for
Reconsideration only on 13 April 2009, clearly the Motion for
Reconsideration was filed beyond the fifteen (15) days (sic)
reglementary period thus the herein Decision has already become
final and executory. x x x.16ςrνllaw library
On June 25, 2009, Consolacion filed a Petition for Review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court with the CA.17ςrνll
On July 1, 2009, the 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 Resolution 19 on October 15, 2009 dismissing the
petition.Ïlιbrαrÿ
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.ςηαñ
SO ORDERED. ‚rνllbles virtual law library
Consolacion moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA
in a Resolution dated March 11, 2010.
Consolacion is, before this Court, claiming that the CA s summary
dismissal of her petition on technical grounds is unwarranted.
Consolacion invoked substantial justice against the CA s strict
application of the rule requiring her counsel to note his MCLE
Compliance or Exemption Certificate Number and the rule rendering
the jurat of her verification and certification on non-forum-shopping
defective in the absence of the details of any one of her current
identification document issued by an official agency bearing her
photograph and signature. That there was merit in her petition and
that she complied, albeit belatedly as her counsel s MCLE Compliance
Certificate Number was indicated and a verification and certificate on
non-forum-shopping with a proper jurat was attached to her motion
for reconsideration, should have sufficed for the CA to reverse the
dismissal of her petition and decide the same on its merits.
Consolacion alleged that procedural rules or technicalities are observe these rules and rationalize their omission by harking on
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and their rigid liberal construction.
application should be avoided if this would frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice. While it IS the negligence of Consolacion's counsel that led to this
unfortunate result, she is bound by such.
The Court finds no merit in the petition. The Court sees no reversible
error committed by the CA in dismissing Consolacion s petition before WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The
it on the ground of petitioner s unexplained failure to comply with Resolutions dated October 15, 2009 and March 11, 2010 of the Court
basic procedural requirements attendant to the filing of a Petition for of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 109265 are AFFIRMED.
Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Notably, Consolacion and
her counsel remained obstinate despite the opportunity afforded to Costs against the petitioner.
them by the CA to rectify their lapses. While there was compliance,
this took place, however, after the CA had ordered the dismissal of SO ORDERED.
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." 22ςrνll

This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural

rules. It is the duty of every member of the bar to comply with these
rules. They are not at liberty to seek exceptions should they fail to