1. SALLY D. BONGALONTA vs. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO and ALFONSO M.

MARTIJA

FACTS:
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.
The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for estafa,
against the Sps. Luisa and Solomer Abuel. She also filed, a separate civil action, where she was able to
obtain a writ of preliminary attachment and by virtue thereof, a piece of real property situated in Pasig,
Rizal and registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel. 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 Pasig Regional Trial Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the
said case Gregorio Lantin was represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuel were
declared in default for their failure to file the necessary responsive pleading and evidence ex-parte was
received against them followed by a judgment by default rendered in favor of Gregorio Lantin. A writ of
execution was, in due time, issued and the same property previously attached by complainant was levied
upon.
It is further alleged that in all the pleadings filed in these three (3) aforementioned cases, Atty. Pablito
Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same IBP receipt
number. Thus, complainant concluded that 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 the civil case he filed.
After hearing, the IBP Board of Governors issued it Resolution with the following findings and
recommendations:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his co-respondent
Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.The complaint against Atty. Martija is hereby DISMISSED for lack of evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:
The Court agreed with the foregoing findings and recommendations. 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 such privilege. One of these
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.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty committing a falsehood in violation of his
lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND him from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning that commission of the same or similar
offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.

2. MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA

A.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness which amounts to
P11, 000.00, the checks were dishonored. It was dishonored because the account against which is
drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Commission recommended the suspension
from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline
Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-
B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report
regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of a Resolution from this
Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of
estafa through falsification of a commercial document. 

Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn against a
closed account.

Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the
issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v.
Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be
sanctioned with one year’s suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six months
upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however, herein respondent has,
apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document, a crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended.
Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case
likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we
have long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a
crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v.
Narciso N. Jaramillo, “the review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The
judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to
hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it
to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the
administration of justice.”

3. ABELLA VS. BARRIOS

FACTS
On January 21, 1999, Eduardo Abella (petitioner) 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).
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ordered PT&T to pay complainant P113,100.00 as separation pay and P73,608.00
as backwages. PT & T brought the case to the NLRC.

The NLRC set aside the LA’s ruling and instead ordered PT&T to reinstate complainant to his former
position and pay him backwages, as well as 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, including
moral damages and attorney's fees. PT & T brought the case to the Court of Appeals.

The CA affirmed the NLRC's ruling with modification, ordering PT&T to pay complainant separation pay
instead of reinstatement. Complainant moved for partial reconsideration, claiming that all his years of
service were not taken into account in the computation of his separation pay and backwages. The CA
granted the motion and remanded the case to the LA. On July 19, 2004, the CA Decision became final and
executory.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Cebu City RAB on October 25,
2004, where Ricardo Barrios Jr. (respondent) was the Labor Arbiter. Several months have lapsed without
the respondent acting on his motion, hence petitioner personally visited respondent’s office. Respondent
told him that the matter could be "easily fixed" and thereafter, asked "how much is mine?" Despite his
shock, complainant offered the amount of P20,000.00, but respondent replied: "make it P30,000.00." By
force of circumstance, complainant acceded on the condition that respondent would have to wait until he
had already collected from PT&T. Before complainant could leave, respondent asked him for some cash,
compelling him to give the latter P1,500.00.

On November 7, 2005, respondent issued a writ of execution, directing the sheriff to proceed to the
premises of PT&T and collect the amount of P1,470,082.60, inclusive of execution and deposit fees.
However, he recalled this order after PT&T moved to quash the writ. Respondent then issued another writ
of execution, reducing the monetary awards to P114,585.00, inclusive of execution and deposit fees.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed on December 16, 2005 a Petition for Injunction before the NLRC, which ruled
that respondent had no authority to modify the CA Decision which was already final and executory.

Petitioner filed a criminal case against respondent at the Ombudsman and a disbarment case with the
IBP for violation of 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.

The the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-2008-345 recommending the disbarment of
respondent.

ISSUES
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.
RULING
Yes, 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.

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. When
complainant moved for execution — twice at that — respondent slept on the same for more than a year. It
was only when complainant paid respondent a personal visit on November 4, 2005 that the latter speedily
issued a writ of execution three days after, or on November 7, 2005. Based on these incidents, the Court
observes that the sudden dispatch in respondent's action soon after the aforesaid visit casts serious
doubt on the legitimacy of his denial, i.e., that he did not extort money from the complainant.

Also, records disclose that respondent denied PT&T's initial motion to quash through an Order dated
November 22, 2005 but later reversed such order in open court on the basis of PT&T's supplemental
motion to quash which was a mere rehash of the first motion that was earlier denied. As a result,
respondent recalled his earlier orders and issued a new writ of execution, reducing complainant's
monetary awards from P1,470,082.60 to P114,585.00, inclusive of execution and deposit fees.

On the second issue, respondent tried to distort the findings of the CA by quoting portions of its decision,
propounding that the CA's award of separation pay denied complainant's entitlement to any backwages
and other consequential benefits altogether.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral
conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. However, since respondent has already
been disbarred in Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., he is ordered to pay a fine of P40,000.00.

4. ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC

FACTS

Petitioners filed before the Supreme Court to order respondent to cease and desist from issuing
advertisements which petitioner alleged to be champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession
and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar.
Respondents in their answer, claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in rendering of ‘legal
support services’. It also argues that assuming services advertised are legal services, the act of
advertising should be allowed as decided in the case of Bates, et al v. State Bar of Arizona.

ISSUES

W/n the services offered by respondent as advertised constitute practice of law.

W/n services of a lawyer engaged in the practice of law be allowed to advertise his/her talents.

RULING

YES. The services offered by respondent constitute practice of law. On the first advertisement where they
advertise rendering wedding services, services on routine may not necessarily constitute practice of law.
However, when the said problem would be as complicated as the remedy for legal problems, it may now
be considered as practice of law. On the respondent’s offer of giving information on divorce, absence of
annulment of marriage and visas, purely giving information may not constitute practice of law. However,
the SC noted that aside from purely giving info, the Legal Clinic’s paralegals may apply the law to a
particular problem and give legal advice. This would as well constitute practice of law. It is clear that
respondent give out legal info to laymen and lawyers and that it could not possibly secure the law and not
explain it to the client as well as advising the latter of the proper action to be taken. The SC also noted
that most of the services offered by the respondent are beyond the domain of paralegals but are
exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law.

NO. The advertisements are not valid. The CPR provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of fact. The standards of
the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. The canons of the profession
tells us that 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.

The SC also noted that although advertising is not allowed, the canon of professional ethics enumerates
exceptions to the rule which are:
1) Publication in reputable law lists in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed
by the canons of brief bio and informative data.
2) Such publication must not properly publish his brief bio and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal, or society program.
3) Ordinary simple professional card is also permitted.
It is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action to advertise his
services in allowable instances or to aid a layman in an unauthorized practice of law. Atty. Nogales who
was the prime incorporator is hereby reprimanded. Legality of the purpose is passed upon by the SC.

5. MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS A.C. No. 6622, July 10,
2012

FACTS:

Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004
against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution.
The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.

In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby
he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they
would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding,
18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent being
able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not pay
the amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of
cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third
charge of gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of
bigamy for having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.

In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was
not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one
of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and
incompetent in performing his job and that 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. Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a
Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the
Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative
value, since it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address
the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of

respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to in
the Certification issued by the NSO.

On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by
complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed
that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he had
recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing his
name and allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.

The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved

for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of
petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the
administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.

On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second
charge, the Commission found respondent to 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. As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to
be 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. 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.

On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154,
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
recommendation to disbar him was premature.

On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and
affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondent’s disbarment.

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.

RULING:

First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.

Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not
concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, 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 rende-red with a
person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held
that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients
secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainant’s allegations in this case had not been proven,
the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that
was breached. 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.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety
arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be
inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the
business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for
the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of
a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.

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. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.

Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice
by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

Third charge: Bigamy.

The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on
the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as the verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant — do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications
and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the
administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into
through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two
marriages while the latter’s first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering
into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a
negative pregnant.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice
while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held
thus:

[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only
as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply
and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional
dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as
the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice,
in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree
of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly
repose confidence in him.

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.57 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.58

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered
that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

6. 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) newpapers 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."

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;

(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 counsel de 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.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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).
(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.

(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(9), 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.

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.

7. KHAN VS. SIMBILLO

Facts:
i. Resp Atty. Rizalino Simbillo advertised in the PDI and MB his legal services for
annulment cases
ii. Upon investigation by the Pub Info Office, it was confirmed that Simbillo is offering
his services to interested clients.
iii. Ismael Khan, chief of the PIO, filed an administrative charge vs resp for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal services in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
iv. Resp argues that advertising or solicitation is not per se a prohibited act:
a. Public interest is not served by the absolute prohibition
 b. It’s time for the Court to promulgate a ruling that such advertisement is not
contrary to law, public policy and public order.
v. The IBP found the resp guilty and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 year,
writing it in a resolution
Issues:
W/N resp’s act was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
Yes.
i. Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code states that a lawyer is prohibited from
performing acts designed to solicit legal business and that he is not permitted to
use self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.
ii. Practice of Law is not a business. It is a profession with public interest as the
primary duty. It’s not a money-making venture and law advocacy is not a capital
that necessarily yields profits. The duty is to public service and the administration
of justice. Elements that distinguish it from business:
a.  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;
b. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
c. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
d.  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.
- The solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed.  However, for solicitation
to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.  If it is made
in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar

8. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

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.
SEC. 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.

(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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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 period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole
number.

Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)

SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT

UNITS measure compliance with the MCLE requirement under the Rules, based on the
category of the lawyers participation in the MCLE activity. The following are the guidelines for
computing credit units and the supporting documents required therefor:

PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION

PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED
PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES

1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF

ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF HOURS

1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF

RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS
CERTIFICATION
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR

2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW

2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK

LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS
EDITOR
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD

2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED

LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL

2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF

BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR
LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW
DIRECTOR
Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either participatory or non-participatory.

SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory 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.

SEC. 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
members 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.

SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the Bar are likewise
exempt:

(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.

(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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 members signature was obtained at the time of
attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the members 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;

(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.

SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. 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.

SEC. 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 members compliance period.

SEC. 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 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 (including evidence of exempt status)
within the 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.

SEC. 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 units earned 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.

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.

SEC. 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 IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline as a
fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.
SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.

9. 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.

1. 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)