UNIVERSITY OF CEBU

School of Law
Banilad, Cebu City

“Final Requirement for Problem Areas in Legal

Ethics (PALE)”

Submitted by:
Enoc, Ma. Theresa
Cañete, Glykie
Gumban, Jessie Lou
Marinduque, Melissa

Submitted to:
Atty. Stephen Yu

May 18, 2020

1
 SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT, and DISCIPLINE of LAWYERS

Nature and Characteristics of Disciplinary Action against Lawyers

Q: What is the rationally behind the discipline of lawyers?

A: Lawyers are disciplined according to their conduct for the practice of law is
considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess and
continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. (Tumbokon v. Atty.
Pefianco, August 1, 2012)

Q: What are the main objectives of disbarment and suspension?

A: The following are the main objectives for such discipline:
 To compel lawyers to deal fairly and honestly with his clients;
 To remove from profession those whose misconduct has proven him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties belonging to the office of an attorney;
 To punish the lawyer and set an example or warning for the other members of
the bar; and
 To safeguard the administration of justice from incompetent and dishonest
lawyers, at the same time protecting the public.

Q: What is the nature of the disciplinary action against lawyers?

A: Sui generis in nature. Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their
own as they are distinct from and may proceed independently of civil and criminal
cases.
 It is not a civil action, as there is neither a plaintiff nor a respondent, and involves
no private interest. There is no redress for private grievances.
 It is not a criminal prosecution as it is not meant as a punishment depriving him
of source of livelihood but rather to ensure that those who would exercise the
function should be competent and honourable so the public may repose their
confidence in them.
 It is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, as they are investigations by the Court
into the conduct of one of its officers;

Q: What is the nature of the power to discipline?

A: The power to discipline a lawyer is judicial in nature, and can only be exercised by
the court. The power to disbar and reinstate is an inherently judicial function. (Andres v
Cabrera, February 29, 1984)

2
Q: What are the characteristics of disbarment proceedings?
A: the following are the characteristics of disbarment proceedings:
 Sui Generis;
 Defense of double jeopardy cannot be availed of;
 Can be initiated without a complaint and motu propio by the Supreme Court of
IBP;
 It is imprescriptible;
 Conducted confidentially;
 Can proceed regardless of the interest or lack thereof on the part of the
complainant;
 It constitutes due process of law in itself;
 In pari delicto rule not applicable;
 No prejudicial question in disbarment proceedings;
 Penalty cannot be in the alternative; and
 Monetary claims cannot be granted, except for restitution.

Q: What are the forms of disciplinary measures by the Supreme Court?

A: Disciplinary measures may be in the following forms:
1. Warning – an act of putting one on his guard against an impending danger, evil,
consequence or penalty.
2. Admonition – a gentle reproof, mild rebuke, warning, reminder or counselling on
a fault, error or oversight, or an expression of authoritative advice.
3. Reprimand – a public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a
person at fault by his superior officer or the body to which he belongs.
4. Censure – official reprimand;
5. Suspension – temporary withholding of a lawyer’s right to practice his profession
as a lawyer for a certain period or for an indefinite period.
 Definite: suspended for a period provided thereof;
 Indefinite: qualified disbarment. Lawyer determines for himself how
long or how short his suspension shall last by proving to court that
he is once again fit to resume practice of law.
6. Disbarment – the act of the Supreme Court of withdrawing from an attorney the
right to practice law. The name of lawyer is stricken out from the Roll of
Attorneys;
7. Interim Suspension – the temporary suspension of a lawyer from the practice of
law pending imposition of clinical discipline; and
8. Probation – sanction that allows a lawyer to practice law under specified
conditions.

Q: What is the recourse taken by the IBP investigator in case a complaint for
disciplinary action is meritorious, or if not meritorious?

3
A: If complaint appears to be meritorious, Investigator shall require respondent lawyer
to answer the same. If not meritorious or if answer of respondent lawyer shows that
compliant is not meritorious, investigator shall recommend to the IBP Board of
Governors the dismissal of the complaint. (Section 5, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court as
amended by Bar Matter 1645)

Q: Can the IBP continue its investigation despite interruption by reason of

desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges or failure
of complainant to prosecute?
A: Yes, the IBP may continue to investigate and conduct disciplinary proceedings to the
Supreme Court. No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges or failure of
complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme Court motu pro prio or upon
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling
reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the
respondent. (Section 5, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court as amended by Bar Matter 1645)

Q: What is the consequence for wilful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any
other lawful order issued by the Investigator against the respondent?
A: It shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. (Section 8, Rule 139-B, Rules
of Court)

Q: What would be the effect if there are defects in the complaint or proceedings
of the disciplinary action?
A: It shall not be considered substantial unless the Board of Governors finds that such
defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which event, the Board
shall take remedial action as the circumstances may warrant including invalidation of
the entire proceedings. (Section 11, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court)

Q: Are the disciplinary action and proceeding available to the public?

A: No, proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the
final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
(Section 18, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court)

Q: Can the CA and RTC disbar a lawyer?

A: No, CA and RTC cannot disbar a lawyer. However they are empowered to suspend,
warn, admonish, reprimand as well as place a lawyer under probation.

4
Q: What are the factors considered in imposing sanctions against an erring
lawyer?
A: The following are the factors to be considered:
a. The duty violated;
b. The lawyer’s mental state;
c. The actual and potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and
d. The existence of aggravating and mitigating factors.

Q: When would the aggravating and mitigating factors be considered?

A: After misconduct is established, aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be
considered in deciding what sanction to impose.

Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances

1. Prior disciplinary offenses;
2. Dishonest or selfish motives;
3. A pattern of misconduct;
4. Multiple offenses;
5. Vulnerability of victim;
6. Indifference to making restitution;
7. Substantial experience in the
practice of law;
8. Refusal to acknowledge wrongful
nature of conduct;
9. Submission of false evidence or
statements, or other deceptive
practices during the disciplinary
process; and
10. Bad faith by intentionally failing to
comply with the rules or orders of
the disciplinary agency.
1. Good Faith in acquisition of a
property of client subject to
litigation;
2. Inexperience of the lawyer;
3. Age, character or reputation,
apology or remorse;
4. Lack of intention to offend the court;
5. Absence of prior disciplinary record
or remoteness of prior offenses;
6. Absence of selfish or dishonest
motive;
7. Personal or emotional problems;
8. Delay in disciplinary proceedings;
9. Physical or mental disability or
impairment; and
10. Timely good faith and effort to make
restitution or rectify the
consequences of misconduct.

5
Grounds for Disciplinary Action

Q: What are the specific grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers?

A: The grounds are the following:
1. Deceit;
2. Malpractice;
3. Grossly Immoral Conduct;
4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Violation of oath of office;
6. Wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
7. Corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so; and/or
8. Non-payment of IBP membership dues.

Q: Are the mentioned grounds exclusive?

A: No, the grounds enumerated are not exclusive. The statutory enumeration is not to
be taken as a limitation on the general power of Supreme Court to suspend or disbar a
lawyer.

Q: What is the effect if the lawyer’s misconduct was committed PRIOR to

admission to the Bar?
A: The cancellation of license to practice may be justified. The act of misconduct prior to
admission includes those that indicate that at the time the lawyer took his oath, he did
not possess the required qualification for the membership in the bar.

Q: What is the effect if lawyer’s misconduct was committed AFTER admission to

the Bar?
A: Disbarment, suspension and other forms of discipline is merited when a lawyer
commits acts those which cause loss of moral character on his part or involving violation
of his duties to the court, his client, to the legal profession and to the public.

Q: What is legal malpractice?

A: It is the failure of an Attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as a lawyer in
the exercise and performance of tasks they undertake, and when such failure
proximately causes damage, it gives rise to an action in tort.

6
Q: Does intimacy between a lawyer and a woman with no impediment to marry
each other and voluntarily cohabited and bore kids a ground for disciplinary
action?
A: No, it is neither corrupt nor so unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or disciplinary
action against the lawyer as a member of the Bar. (Arciga v. Maniwang, August 14,
1981)

Q: What are the other grounds for discipline?

A: The following are grounds for discipline in addition to the grounds stated above:
1. Non-professional misconduct;
2. Promoting to violate or violating statutory and penal laws;
3. Misconduct in the discharge of official duties;
4. Commission of fraud or falsehood;
5. Misconduct as notary public;
6. Representing conflicting interest;
7. Acquisition of interest in the subject matter of the litigation; and
8. Breach of professional duty, inexcusable negligence, or ignorance, or for the
revelation of the client’s secrets.

Q: Can a lawyer be suspended or disbarred for misconduct in his non-

professional or private capacity?
A: Yes, an errant behaviour on the part of a lawyer, be it in his public or private
activities, which tends to show him deficient in moral character and the same is so gross
as to show him to be morally unfit for office or unworthy of privilege, is sufficient to
warrant his suspension or disbarment. (Tiong v. Atty. Florendo, December 12, 2011)

Q: Can a lawyer who holds government office be disciplined as a member of the

bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official?
A: Generally no, unless the misconduct is also in violation of the CPR or of his oath as a
lawyer or is of such character as to affect his qualifications as a lawyer, he may be
subject to disciplinary action such as disbarment. (Collantes v. Renomeron, August 16,
1991)

Quantum of Proof

Q: What is the quantum of proof needed in disciplinary actions for lawyers?

A: The quantum of proof in administrative cases against lawyers is substantial
evidence. It is the amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might
conceivably opine otherwise.

7
Q: Why is it substantial evidence and not preponderance of evidence?
A: Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is
whether or not the lawyer is a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in
the exercise of its disciplinary power, the court merely calls upon a member of the Bar
to account for his actuations as an officer of the court. There can thus be no occasion to
speak of a complaint or a prosecutor.

Burden of Proof

Q: Who has the burden of proof?

A: Complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by
substantial evidence. He who asserts not he who denies, must prove.

Prescription of Disbarment Cases

Q: Does prescription apply in disbarment proceedings?

A: No. 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 (Garrido v. Garrido, A.C.
No 6593, February 4, 2010).

Proceedings Disciplinary Actions Against Lawyers

Q: What are the procedural steps for disbarment in the IBP?

A. The procedural steps in disbarment proceedings are:
1. Institution of the action
a) Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken
by the Supreme Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
b) If the complaint is filed before the IBP, six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall
be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall
forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an
investigator.
2. Assignment of complaint to an IBP national grievance investigator;
a) The Board of Governors shall appoint from among IBP members an Investigator or,
when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3) investigators to
investigate the complaint.
3. Determination of Merit;

8
If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy
thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen
(15) days from the date of service of notice; and
a) If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of
the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by
the Board of Governors upon his recommendation.
4. Where the respondent is directed to file an Answer, he shall file a verified answer in 6
copies;
5. Investigation Hearing;
a) After joinder of the issues or failure to answer, the respondent shall be given full
opportunity to defend himself, but if the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall proceed ex parte. The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within
three (3) months from commencement, which period may be extended.
b) Suspension pending action:
After receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme
Court, motu propio, or at the instance of the IBP Board of Governors upon the
recommendation of the Investigator, may suspend an attorney from the practice of
his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the
pendency of the investigation
6. Findings and Recommendations of the investigator;
The Investigator shall submit a report to the Board of Governors within 30 days from
termination of the investigation which report shall contain his findings and
recommendations together with the evidence.
7. Review by Board of Governors;
a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with
his report.
b) Upon review, the Board, by majority vote of all its members, shall recommend to the
SC either the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action
c) The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding 30 days from the next
meeting of the Board following the submission of the report of the Investigator.
d) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented
and submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within ten
(10) days from issuance of the resolution.

9
Readmission to the Bar

Q: When the privilege to practice law has been lost, may it once again be
restored?
A: Yes. There is no irretrievable finality as far as admission to the bar is concerned. So
it is likewise as to loss of membership. What must ever be borne in mind is that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Failure to abide by any of
them entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move.
Thereafter a sufficient time having elapsed after actuations, he may once again be
considered for the restoration of such a privilege.

Q: What are the guidelines to be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order
suspending a lawyer from the practice of law?
A: The following should be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a
lawyer from the practice of law:
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law,
the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon
receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration
thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn
Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he
or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during
the period of his or her suspension;
4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and
to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by
him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with
the order of suspension;
6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall
be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be
warranted.
Q: When may a disbarred lawyer be reinstated?
A: A disbarred lawyer may be reinstated, upon determination whether the applicant has
satisfied and convinced the Court, by positive evidence, that the effort he has made
toward rehabilitation of his character has been successfool, and therefore he is entitled
to be readmitted to a profession which is intrinsically and office of trust (In Re: Rusiana,
A.C. 270 (Resolution), March 29, 1974).

Q: What is "positive evidence?"

10
A: The positive evidence refers to proofs of honesty, integrity and good moral character;
through written testimonials of credible institutions and personalities.

Q: What are the criteria to be considered in reinstating a lawyer?

A: Below are the criteria to be considered in reinstating a lawyer:

1. Appreciation of the significance of his dereliction;

2. Assurance to the court that he now possess the requisite robity and integrity
necessary to guarantee his worthiness to b restored to the practice of law;
3. Time elapsed between disbarment and application for reinstatement;
4. Good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment
5. Active involvement in civil, educational, and religious organizations;
6. Favorable indorsement of IBP as well as local government officials and citizens of his
community; and
7. Pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and fortune of his family (Tan v. Sabandal,
B.M. No 44, February 10, 1989).

Q: What are the effects of a lawyer's readmission?

A: The following are the effects of readmission of a lawyer.
1. Recognition of moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law;
2. Lawyer shall be subject to the same law, rules and regulations as those
applicable to any other lawyer; and
3. Lawyer must comply with the conditions imposed on his readmission.

Q: What is the effect of executive pardon to the lawyer's disbarment?

A: It depends. If the pardon is granted after the disbarment case, the disbarred lawyer
due to conviction for a crime is not automatically reinstated to the practice of law upon
being pardoned by the President. To be reinstated, there is still a need for the filing of
an appropriate petition with the SC.

If granted prior to the disbarment case, absolute pardon operates to wipe out the
conviction, and is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment of the attorney. However,
if the pardon granted was conditional, respondent must be judged upon the fact of his
conviction, without regard to the pardon he invokes as defense. The degree of moral
turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged from the profession (In re:
Disbarment proceedings against Atty. Gutierrex, A.C. No. L363, July 31, 1962)

11
 MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)

BAR MATTER NO. 850 AS AMENDED

Q: What is the purpose of MCLE?

A: MCLE ensures that the members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are
kept abreast with law and jurisprudence throughout their career, maintain the ethics of
the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law (Sect. 1, Rule 1, B.M
No. 850).

MCLE COMPLIANCE AND REQUIREMENTS

Q: What are the requirements for MCLE completion?

A: Members of the IBP, unless 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.

Q: How shall the 36 hours be divided?

A: The 36 hours shall be divided as follows:
1. At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.
2. At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pre-trial skills.
3. At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution.
4. At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and
procedural laws, and jurisprudence.
5. At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy.
6. At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and
international conventions.
7. The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee.

As to the MCLE for a newly admitted member of the bar, the same starts on the first day
of the month of his admission (Bar Matter No. 850, Sec. 3, Rule 3).
Q: What are the consequences in case of failure to comply with MCLE?
A: A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the 60-day period shall be
listed as delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon recommendation of
the Committee on MCLE.

Q: What constitutes non-compliance of the MCLE?

A: The following constitutes non-compliance of the MCLE:

12
1) Failure to complete education requirement within the compliance period;
2) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
3) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of
exempt status) within the prescribed period;
4) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such
compliance within 60 days from receipt of noncompliance notice;
5) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period; or
6) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.

NOTE: Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the
specific deficiency and will be given 60 days from date of notification to file a response.

Q: Can a lawyer who lacks the number of units required by the MCLE Board
continue to practice the profession? (2014 Bar)
A: YES. A lawyer, not being exempted from MCLE, who fails to comply with the required
legal education activities shall receive a Non-Compliance Notice and shall be required
to explain the deficiency or otherwise show compliance with the requirements. A
member who fails to satisfactory comply therewith shall be listed as a delinquent
member by the IBP, wherein he shall be included in the inactive status (Rule 12 and
Rule 13, B.M. 850).
He may still practice the profession but all his pleadings submitted to court may be
expunged from the records since it is required that 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 (Bar Matter No. 1922, June 3, 2008).

EXEMPTION FROM THE MCLE REQUIREMENTS

Q: Who are members of the bar that are exempted from the MCLE?
A: The following members of the bar are exempted from the MCLE:
1. The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the
Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executives Departments;
2. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
3. 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;
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant
Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;

13
 8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviews and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least 10 years accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors
and Professorial Lectures of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
12. Governors and Mayors.

13. Those who are not in law practice, private or public.

14. Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP
Board of Governors. (Sections 1 & 2, Rule 7, B.M No. 850).

Q: When shall the period of exemption commence?

A: In the case of the President and the Vice-President of the Philippines, the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent members of the
judiciary and incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council, it shall be from the
time of election or appointment and any deficiency in past MCLE compliance periods
are considered cured upon such election or appointment.

All other persons under Rule 7, Section 1 are exempted from the requirements of the
MCLE from the time of their appointment and while incumbent. Any deficiency in MCLE
compliance prior to the appointment must be completed before the MCLE Office may
issue a certificate of exemption for the applicable compliance period (MCLE Governing
Board Resolution No. 9-2013).

Q: What is the current requirement before court lawyers may qualify for the
exemption?
A: The qualification that incumbent court lawyers must have been incumbent for at least
two (2) years of each compliance period was abandoned for being an unreasonable and
impractical requirement specifically for those court lawyers who have been newly
admitted to the bar and appointed/designated as such with less than two years
remaining before the end of the compliance period.

As such, the new rule now requires that initial application for exemption of incumbent
court lawyers newly admitted to the bar irrespective of the period of incumbency, may
be considered valid he/she attended at least two (2) days Philippine Judicial Academy
(PHILJA) program of continuing legal education.

Q: How is “newly admitted lawyers” defined for purposes of the above-mentioned

MCLE resolution?
A: Newly admitted lawyer is defined as those admitted to the bar at any time within the
three year MCLE compliance period who will undertake initial compliance with the
MCLE requirement and were appointed/designated as court lawyers at any time within
the same compliance period.

14
The requirement applies only to his/her initial compliance period upon admission to the
bar. Exemption from the MCLE for succeeding compliance periods shall still be
governed by the 2/3 rule pursuant to MCLE Resolution No. 3, s. 2010.

Note: The required two (2) days of PHILJA program may include all other PHILJA-
sponsored seminars related to legal education which may consist of one-day
program each, not necessarily a series of at least two (2) days.

Q: What happens if the applicant fails to attend at least two (2) days of PHILJA
program?
A: In cases where the applicant fails to attend at least two (2) days of PHILJA program,
the applicant must complete his/her deficiency for the current compliance period before
he/she shall be granted exemption for the succeeding compliance periods (MCLE
Governing Board Resolution No. 9-2013).

Q: What is the 2/3 Rule in relation to MCLE exemption?

A: The two-thirds (2/3) rule provides that the applicant court lawyer must have served at
least two years of the three-year compliance period provided under Bar Matter No. 850,
before he/she may be issued a certificate of exemption for MCLE.

Q: How can a member request for an exemption from MCLE compliance or

modification of any of the requirements?
A: Section 3, Rule 7 of B.M No. 850 provides that 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, among others, including an extension of time for
compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.

Exemption on the ground of old age falls under the same provision. Lawyers who are
seventy-five years old and above shall also be exempted from compliance with MCLE
requirements and shall be allowed to perform notarial work only for a living.

BAR MATTER NO. 1922 (June 3, 2008)

Q: What is the requirement imposed in B.M. No 1922?

ANS: Practicing members of the bar are required 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. 

Q: What is the effect of failure to disclose the required information?

A: Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case
and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

15
BAR MATTER NO. 1922, as Amended (January 14, 2014)

Q: What is the amendment introduced to B.M No. 1922?

ANS: The harsh penalty of dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings for
counsel’s failure to disclose the required MCLE information is now amended. Instead,
the non-compliant counsel will merely be subject to fine, the amount of which depends
on the frequency of the offense, and disciplinary action.

Q: What are the imposable fines for non-compliance?

ANS: The imposable fines are as follow:
1. First offense – P2,000.00
2. Second offense – P3,000.00
3. Third offense – P4,000.00

Note: In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar
pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and
regulations; and the non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the
client/s shall be allowed to secure the services of a new counsel.

MCLE Resolution No. 4 Series of 2010 (March 3, 2010)

Q: What is the additional requirement [for lawyers] in order to obtain MCLE

Exemption on account of old age and physical disability?
A: The MCLE Governing Board requires the applicants to submit their application for
exemption together with an undertaking that he/she will not engage in the practice of
law except notarial services.

MCLE Resolution No. 001-2015 (June 24, 2015)

Q: What is the purpose of this Resolution?

A: To safeguard “not in law practice, public or private” as a ground for exemption from
the MCLE.

Q: What are the requirements to be complied in order to obtain such MCLE

exemption?
A: The applicant must submit, together with the verified application for exemption, an
affidavit that he/she is not engaged and will not engage in the practice of law, public or
private, for the entire duration of the compliance period/s applied for.

16
Q.: What will the lawyer do if he/she will engage in the practice of law or when
his/her employment or other endeavour will eventually involve the practice of law
before the expiration of the compliance period for which the exemption was
granted?
A: He/she shall comply with the requirements of MCLE.

Q.: What is the consequence if any member of the Bar will be found using the
ground mentioned above purposely to avoid compliance with the MCLE?
A: He/she will be declared non-compliant and shall bear the consequences of non-
compliance as provided under Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850.

Q.: How much will the applicant pay for the exemption?
A: Php1, 000 as exemption fee and Php1, 000 as non-compliance fee.

Rules and Regulations in the conduct of MCLE Online

(AM No. 19-10-16-SC, November 29, 2019)

Q.: What are the 2 major requirements in the conduct of MCLE Online as an
alternative mode of delivering MCLE?

A: The major requirements are (1) assurance of authenticity of identity of lawyers taking
online MCLE; and (2) relevancy of content of the program.
Q: What are the accreditation requirements for providers of MCLE Online?
A: The following are the accreditation requirements:
1. A duly accredited MCLE Provider in good standing with proven experience
and track record in the delivery of quality and substantive MCLE programs;
2. Letter of intent to provide MCLE online addressed to the MCLE Governing
Board;
3. Presentation of the MCLE Governing Board of a working prototype of their
MCLE online offering;
4. Must have a competent Head Legal Officer who will lead and take charge of
the structure, review and verification of the contents of the MCLE online
courses;
5. Commitment to comply with the Data Privacy Act (DPA), including but ot
limited to, collection, use, data sharing, access/updating, retention of data,
etc., pursuant to the RA 10173 and any amendments thereto;
6. For Private Providers, pursuant to the requirement of affiliation with a law
school under MCLE Governing Board Resolution No. 005-2014, it is required
that faculty members of the affiliate law school must have active participation
in the crafting of the MCLE Online program such as, but not limited to, 30%
participation of the faculty as members of a committee formed for this

17
 purpose which will take charge of the development of online
courses/modules, or as talents/lectures in the delivery of MCLE online/lecture;
7. For IBP National Office, as the sole accredited Provider of all MCLE activities,
including those organized by its Chapters pursuant to MCLE Governing Board
Resolution No. 002-2014, MCLE online applications from IBP Chapters must
be coursed through the IBP National Office and shall be subjected to the
same standards as herein set forth; and
8. Compliance with basic accreditation requirements.

Q: What are the technical requirements in the conduct of MCLE Online?

A: The following are the technical requirements:
a. Providers must have:
1. Reliable internet connection
2. High bandwidth availability, able to scale and capable of supporting
numerous simultaneous connections
3. Encryption mechanism to protect user’s data
4. High availability/uptime and low downtimes
5. Data retention and destruction policy
6. Audit trails and logs
7. Fast and reliable 24/7 customer service support in case of technical
glitches/issues
b. Participants must have:
1. A device (desktop, computer laptop, tablet, smartphones) with front-facing
camera and capable of accessing online course/module
2. Reliable internet connection

Q: What are the security requirements in the registration of participants?

A: The following are the security requirements:
1. The provider must ensure the identity of their registered participants by requiring
submission of a copy, preferably of his/her IBP ID or any government-issued ID
for authentication purposes;
2. The provider must incorporate, as part of the registration process, statements for
affirmation by the participant of the following:
a. As to the veracity of his/her identity
b. As to his/her faithful and truthful personal attendance in viewing and
completing the MCLE Online course/module
3. The provider shall ensure compliance with the Data Privacy Act (DPA) and its
IRRS by securing the consent of participants through posting of privacy notices
prior to personal data gathering, with assurance that processing of data is
consistent with privacy principles of transparency, legitimate purpose, and
proportionality;
4. Other authentication requirements as may be required by the MCLE Governing
Board

Q: What are the security requirements during the conduct of MCLE online?

18
Ans.: The following are the security requirements:
1. The Provider must incorporate authentication mechanism/s to ensure the identity
of the participant while viewing a course/module
2. The Provider must incorporate interactive content in the course/module by
means of Q&A or other similar modes or method/s to engage active participation
of viewer
3. Forward streaming of course/module shall not be allowed and should only be
available to participant after finishing the whole course/module. The participant
may, however, review or go back to the previous slides at his/her convenience
4. Other requirements as may be required by the MCLE Governing Board

Q: How will the credit units be determined?

A: the weight /credit unit/s shall be determined based on the following criteria:
1. Content relevancy
2. Exhaustive content delivery
3. Concise presentation
4. Delivery tools used
5. Other parameters as may be deemed relevant by the MCLE Governing Board

Q: How much is the payment of Activity Fee?

Ans.: The fee and period of payment shall be determined in the MCLE Implementing
Guidelines. The fee is subject to change as may be deemed necessary by the MCLE
Governing Board, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court En Banc.

Q: What are the penalties for the Providers in case of violation of any of the terms
and conditions?
Ans.: Any provider found violating any of the terms and conditions of general and online
accreditation, and/or employing fraud, misrepresentation or any other form of deceit in
the conduct of its online/on demand MCLE, shall be subjected to criminal and/or civil
actions as may be deemed necessary and appropriate, in addition to the
revocation/non-renewal of its accreditation.
Q: What are the penalties for the Participants in case of violations of the
provisions herein?
A: Any participant found employing fraud, misrepresentation and/or deceit in the
conduct of availing MCLE online/on demand shall be subjected to appropriate
disciplinary action pursuant to Rule 139-B (Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys) of
the Rule of Court, as amended.

19
 CASES

1) LETTER OF LUCENA OFENDOREYES ALLEGING ILLICIT ACTIVITIES OF A

CERTAIN ATTY CAJAYON INVOLVING CASES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY JUNE 6, 2017

FACTS: On October 1 7, 2016, Adante filed before the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) a letter, alleging that it was "intimated to [her]" that Atty. Cajayon, whom
she met only once, was in cahoots with Justice Lantion in engaging in the shameful
business of "selling" decisions involving cases from the CA-CDO to the highest bidder.
Subsequently, or on October 25, 2017, Ofendoreyes filed before the same agency a
letter, requesting the latter to investigate and stop the purported partnership of Atty.
Cajayon and Justice Lantion from the business of selling decisions in exchange for
money. Both letter-complaints were respectively referred by the Ombudsman to this
Court on November 22, 20164 and November 23, 2016, which were, consequently,
docketed as IPI No. 17-248-CA-J and A.M. No. 16-12-03-CA. In a Resolution dated
January 10, 2017, the Court referred the administrative matters to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) to study the possible consolidation of the same.
The OCA's Report and Recommendation
In a Memorandum dated February 14, 2017, the OCA recommended that the matters
be consolidated, considering that both letter-complaints involve the same respondents,
i.e., Atty. Cajayon and Justice Lantion, and issue, i.e., the sale of favorable decisions
involving cases in the CA-CDO to the highest bidder. The OCA, however, observed that
the letter-complaints were insufficient in form and substance in that they: (1) were not
verified; and (2) lacked affidavits of persons who may have personal knowledge of the
facts to prove or substantiate the letter-complaints' allegations against respondents, as
well as supporting documents. Moreover, it echoed the rule that in administrative
proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of
rests on the complainant, and that in the absence of evidence against a court employee
or magistrate to discipline for a grave offense, the presumption that the respondent has
regularly performed his duties will prevail.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cajayon and Justice Lantion should be held
administratively liable.
RULING: NO. Under the Rules of Court, administrative complaints both against lawyers
and judges of regular and special courts as well as Justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan must be verified and supported by affidavits of persons who have
personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may

20
substantiate said allegations. For lawyers, these requirements are stated in Section 1,
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court:

SECTION 1. How Instituted. - Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline

of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall
state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits
of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
documents as may substantiate said facts. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Meanwhile, for judges and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the
requirements are found in Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Meanwhile, for judges and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the
requirements are found in Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court:
SECTION 1. How instituted. — Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be
instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint,
supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing
and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of
standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Courts or the Code of
Judicial Conduct. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In this relation, Section 2 of Rule 140 states that:
SECTION 2. Action on the complaint. — If the complaint is sufficient in form and
substance, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, and he shall be
required to comment within ten (10) days from the date of service. Otherwise, the same
shall be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied)
In these cases, it is evident that the herein complaints lacked the foregoing
requirements. Complainants' respective single page letter-complaints are indisputably
unverified, and bereft of any supporting affidavits or documents that would support the
charges made against herein respondents. Overall, they contain bare allegations that,
unfortunately, have no factual or legal anchorage.
Jurisprudence dictates that in administrative proceedings, complainants bear the burden
of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence. If they fail to show
in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which their claims are based, the respondents
are not obliged to prove their exception or defense.14 The same goes with
administrative cases disciplining for grave offense court employees or magistrates. The
evidence against the respondent should be competent and should be derived from
direct knowledge.

21
 2) CHERYL E. VASCO-TAMARAY V. ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS JAN. 26, 2016

FACTS: Complainant filed a complaint affidavit before the IBP on 30 July 2007, alleging
the respondent filed, on her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
without her consent and forged her signature on the Petition. She also alleged that the
respondent signed the said Petition as “Counsel for the Petitioner.” referring to the
complainant. The complainant stated the respondent was not her counsel but that of her
husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray.
ISSUE: WON only the Supreme Court has the power to impose disciplinary action on
members of the bar.
HELD: YES. The amendments to Rule 139-B is a reiteration that only this court has the
power to impose disciplinary action on members of the bar.
Rule 139-B has been amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 dated October 13, 2015.
Section 12 of Rule 139-B now provides that:
Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys
Section 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of Governors.
(a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator
with his report.
(b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership,
shall recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the
imposition of disciplinary action against the respondent. The Board shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, clearly and distinctly
stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based. The resolution shall be
issued within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of
the Board following the submission of the Investigator's report.
(c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence
presented and submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final
action within ten (10) days from issuance of the resolution.
(d) Notice of the resolution shall be given to all parties through their counsel, if
any.
Under the old rule, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was
given the power to "issue a decision" if the lawyer complained of was exonerated or
meted a penalty of "less than suspension or disbarment." In addition, the case would be
deemed terminated unless an interested party filed a petition before this court.
The amendments to Rule 139-B is a reiteration that only this court has the power to
impose disciplinary action on members of the bar. The factual findings and

22
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are recommendatory, subject to review by this
court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis is found GUILTY of violating Canon
1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The charge for violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 against respondent Atty. Deborah Z.
Daquis is DISMISSED.
The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis.
The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to remove the name of Deborah Z. Daquis
from the Roll of Attorneys.

3) GARRIDO V. GARRIDO FEB. 4, 2010

FACTS: Petitioner Maelotisea Sipin Garrido, second wife of Atty. Angel Garrido, filed a
disbarment case against his husband as well as his alleged mistress, Atty. Ramona
Valencia. She alleged that her husband has an illicit relationship with Atty. Valencia
which produced an offspring. Both according to her had their marriage in Hongkong. In
addition to this, she also purported that ever since respondent left their conjugal home,
the latter failed to provide financial support.
Respondent Garrido denied all the allegations hurled against him and asserted that the
marriage between him and Maelotisea is void ab initio as he was still married with
Constancia, his first wife. He also pointed out that those transpired before his admission
to the bar. In the course of the hearings, respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of
Proceedings in view of the criminal complaint for concubinage Maelotisea filed against
them, and the Petition for Declaration of Nullity (of marriage) Atty. Garrido filed to nullify
his marriage to Maelotisea. Respondent filed the same motion after the RTC declared
the marriage between Atty. Garrido and Maelotisea “an absolute nullity.”All were
dismissed by the IBP. Petitioner herself filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints
she filed against the respondents, arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relations
with Atty. Garrido but the same was dismissed. IBP proceeded with the respondent
Garrido’s disbarment. Hence, respondent seeks relief to the Court.
ISSUE:
1. Should the disbarment case against Atty. Garrido be dismissed because the alleged
immoral acts were committed before he was admitted to the Philippine Bar?
2. Whether the desistance of Maelotisea merits the dismissal of the case.
RULING:

23
1. NO. Prescription of offenses by the complainant do not apply in the determination of
a lawyer’s qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. 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 time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of the complaint
is not material in considering the qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied for
admission to the practice of law, and his continuing qualification to be a member of the
legal profession. From this perspective, it is not important that the acts complained of
were committed before Atty. Garrido was admitted to the practice of law. The
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. Admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon
proper complaint, into any question concerning the mental or moral fitness of the
respondent before he became a lawyer (Zaguirre v. Castillo). Admission to the practice
only creates the rebuttable presumption that the applicant has all the qualifications to
become a lawyer; this may be refuted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary
even after admission to the Bar.
2. NO. In light of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of
disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern, Maelotisea’s affidavit of
desistance cannot have the effect of discontinuing or abating the disbarment
proceedings. Maelotisea is more of a witness than a complainant in these proceedings.
We note further that she filed her affidavits of withdrawal only after she had presented
her evidence; her evidence are now available for the Court’s examination and
consideration, and their merits are not affected by her desistance. We cannot fail to
note, too, that Mealotisea filed her affidavit of desistance, not to disown or refute the
evidence she had submitted, but solely because of compassion (and, impliedly, out of
concern for her personal financial interest in continuing friendly relations with Atty.
Garrido).

4) [A.C. No. 8254 (Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1310) : February 15, 2012] NESA
ISENHARDT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, RESPONDENT.

FACTS: This case stemmed from the verified complaint1 filed with the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) on 9 September 2004 by Nesa G. Isenhardt (complainant), through
her counsel Atty. Edgardo Golpeo, seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty.
Leonardo M. Real (respondent) for allegedly notarizing a document even without the
appearance of one of the parties.
In his answer, respondent denied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that she
met the complainant through her brother Wilfredo Gusi and sister-in-law Lorena Gusi
who seek advice for a computer business which will be financed by the complianant.
Respondent also claimed that Sps Gusi and the complainant appeared onSeptember

24
14, 2000 in his office to have the SPA notarized. The parties signed and presented
TCTs and the original Transfer Certificate of the property subject of fhte SPA. He further
averred that his services was engaged by the Gusi in a civil case but it was
discontinued because of nonpayment of his services.
Furthermore, he claimed that the claims of the complainant has already prescribed and
the SPA was never used to prejudice third person and did not cause grave injury to the
complainant.
Respondent concluded that complainant’s cause of action had already prescribed. He
argued that under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a complaint for disbarment prescribes in two years
from the date of professional misconduct. Since the document questioned was
notarized in year 2000, the accusation of misconduct which was filed only in September
2004 had already prescribed. Moreover, respondent noted that the SPA in question
authorizing the grantee Wilfredo Gusi to mortgage the property of complainant was not
used for any transaction with a third person prejudicial to the latter. The annotation at
the back of the TCT7 would show that the property subject of the SPA was instead sold
by complainant to her brother Wilfredo for ₱500,000.00 on 12 January 2001. Thus, he
submits that the SPA did not cause grave injury to the complainant.
ISSUE: Whether or not prescription of offense applies in this case.
RULING: NO. Anent respondent’s claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to
Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, we
agree with the Investigating Commissioner that the rule should be construed to mean
two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. To rule otherwise
would cause injustice to parties who may have discovered the wrong committed to them
only at a much later date. In this case, the complaint was filed more than three years
after the commission of the act because it was only after the property was foreclosed
that complainant discovered the SPA.

5) TAN V. IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE SEPT. 5, 2006

FACTS: Sometime in January of 2002 Tomas G. Tan, a stock holder and director of
CST Enterprises Inc., discovered that two parcel of land owned by the corporation was
used as a mortgage to secure a load with the Philippine Business Bank, this loan was
acquired by a John Dennis Chua, Chua was purportedly authorized by the Board of
Directors of the corporation as shown by the Corporate Secretary’s Certificate dated 04
April 2001 signed by Atty. Jaime N. Soriano.
Tomas G. Tan filed a complaint with the IBP, he alleged that Atty. Jaime N. Soriano
committed deceit, malpractice, falsification of public documents, gross misconduct and
violation of oath of office, because Atty. Jaime N. Soriano was never elected as the
Corporate Secretary of CST Enterprise Inc., and that there were no board meeting held

25
on March 30, 2001 to authorize John Dennis Chua to contract a loan with Philippine
Business Bank because two of the three directors are not in the country at that time.
Aside from complaint filed with the IBP, another case was filed at the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City by the petitioner, the case seeks to declare the unenforceability of
the promissory note and mortgage, the nullity of the Secretary’s Certificate, and the
injunction, with a prayer for an issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.
In the course of the proceedings in the said civil case, petitioners claim to have
gathered more information and seen the “extent of the plot or machinations” of
respondent and the participation of other individuals, including Atty. Taala who was the
Assistant Vice President for Legal Services of PBB. Atty. Taala had testified in Civil
Case No. 02-299 that sometime in January 2001, Felipe Chua personally delivered to
him CST’s titles to the mortgaged lots and that Felipe Chua assured him that
respondent is the Corporate Secretary of CST. Thus, CST’s loan application was
recommended for favorable consideration. Which the petitioner allege is not true
because Felipe Chua was abroad at that time. The loan amounting to 91.1 million pesos
was also funnelled not to CST Enterprises Inc., but to Mabuhay Sugar Central Inc.,
where Atty. Jaime N. Soriano is the incorporator, stockholder, and President.
After this further understanding, the petitioner, on 16 June 2003, filed with the IBP,
Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) a Motion to Amend/Supplement the
Complaint with Motion to Admit Amended/Supplemental Complaint, claiming that
respondent and Atty. Taala had facilitated and recommended the approval of the
allegedly spurious loans and mortgage entered into by John Dennis Chua.

The Commission, however, denied the motion on 28 December 2003 on the ground that
the amendments/ supplements involve proceedings pending before the trial courts and
that the determination of the matters presented belong to said courts which have
already acquired jurisdiction over them.
Thus, the petitioner seeks to reconsider the judgement of the Commissioner filed a
Petition for Certiorari alleging that the Commission committed a grave abuse of
discretion because denying the admission of the Amended/Supplemental Complaint
would prevent him from filing a new complaint against Atty. Jaime N. Soriano and Atty.
Taala. As a result, it will make the respondent in the original complaint answerable only
to less serious charges.
The respondent on the other hand claims that the petitioner breached the rule of
proceedings against lawyers when it filed a civil case, the respondents alleged that
when petitioner filed a case with RTC of Makati it in fact announced to the whole worlds
that pending disbarment which is meant to harass and vex him before the final verdict of
the IBP.
ISSUE:

26
1. Whether the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied
petitioner’s Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
2. Whether the petitioner breached the rule of proceeding in disbarment case.
RULING:
1. NO, the Commission did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The Integrated
Bar of the Philippines is merely tasked to investigate and make recommendation on
complaints for disbarment, suspension, and discipline of lawyers. It is not a regular court
and thus is not endowed with the power to investigate and resolve judicial matters
pending before the regular courts.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is not a regular court and thus is not
endowed with the power to investigate and resolve judicial matters pending before the
regular courts.

Petitioners have filed Civil Case No. 02-299, seeking the declaration of unenforceability
of promissory notes and mortgage, nullity of secretary’s certificate, injunction, damages,
and the issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. In the said
case, petitioners allege that the loans contracted by CST from PBB were not sanctioned
nor ratified by the CST Board of Directors and/or stockholders, but were only facilitated
by respondent and Atty. Taala, as well as by other persons through the use of the
spurious Secretary’s Certificate. Likewise pending is another case against respondent
and John Dennis Chua, et al. for estafa through falsification of public documents,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-3776 of the RTC of Makati which appears to involve
the same allegedly unauthorized mortgage. The amendment filed by the petitioner is
similar in nature, as it seeks to find Atty. Taal liable for making untruthful statements.
The Commission is not empowered to to resolve matters which are in pending
resolution by the regular courts, thus the jurisdiction on the case of Atty. Taal falls in the
regular court, to prevent or avoid contradictory findings in the case.
Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, they belong to a class of their own, and are
distinct from that of civil or criminal actions. To be sure, a finding of liability in a civil
case or a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary for finding a member of the bar
guilty in an administrative proceeding.
2. YES, Tomas G. Tan violates the rules of procedure in disbarment case when it
disclosed the pending case, in the IBP, to the regular court.
Under Section 18, of Rules 139-B of Rules of court, “Confidentiality. —Proceedings
against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the
Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.” The reason for this
rules has a three-fold purpose, to wit: (i)to enable the court and the investigator to make

27
the investigation free from any extraneous influence or interference; (ii) to protect the
personal and professional reputation of attorneys from baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive and irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting the publication of such
charges pending their resolution; and (iii) to deter the press from publishing the charges
or proceedings based thereon. When petitioner disclosed the responses in the IBP
proceedings, it breached the confidentiality of the case against Atty. Soriano.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners are REMINDED to preserve the

confidentiality of the administrative proceedings. The IBP is ordered to resume its
hearings in CBD No. 02-267 consistently with this resolution. Costs against petitioners.
Tan vs. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, 501 SCRA 156, G.R. No. 173940
September 5, 2006

6) JIMENEZ V. JIMENEZ FEB 6, 2006

FACTS: On September 20, 2002, petitioner Crisanta Jimenez filed a complaint1 before
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against
respondent Atty. Joel Jimenez for allegedly engaging in dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct; failing to account property received from a client; and failing to deliver property
upon demand of a client.
ISSUE: WON there is sufficient evidence to hold respondent administratively liable.
RULING: NO. The long-settled rule is that the dismissal of a criminal case on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused who is also a respondent in an
administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the administrative proceeding
against him or carry with it the relief from administrative liability. The quantum of
evidence needed in a criminal case is different from that required in an administrative
case.
In the former, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed; while the latter, substantial
evidence, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, is enough. However, if the complainant fails to meet
the required standard or to establish his/her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory
evidence16 as in this case, this Court shall not hesitate to dismiss any disbarment
proceedings against any lawyer. After all, the power to disbar must be exercised with
great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously
affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a
member of the bar.

28
In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was presented to prove that respondent
engaged in dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. There was no factual or legal
basis, much less substantial ground to hold respondent administratively liable.
Likewise, we find no merit in the allegations of petitioner that respondent failed to
account and deliver property she demanded from him. As correctly pointed out by
respondent, he has no duty to account anything to the petitioner as there is no attorney-
client relationship between them. The only relationship between them is that of an
estranged aunt and a nephew-in-law; whereby the former once asked the latter to act as
a courier between her and his father. Besides, with or without any of these relations, the
respondent has nothing to account or deliver to petitioner as the documents in question
were never within his juridical possession nor were they unlawfully taken by him.

7. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. FORMER JUDGE TORMIS AUG

30, 2016
FACTS: A judge should know, or ought to know, his or her role as a solemnizing officer.
This disbarment complaint is an offshoot of our Decision in Office of the Court
Administrator v. Judge Necessario, et al.1 Respondent Former Judge Rosabella M.
Tormis (Tormis), together with other judges and employees of the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Cebu City, was dismissed for turning the solemnization of marriages into a
business.
Tormis was dismissed from the service for the second time, and this Court directed the
Office of the Bar Confidant to initiate disbarment proceedings against her.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged irregularities committed by respondent in the
solemnization of marriages, where she was found guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect
of duty and of gross ignorance of the law, constitute gross misconduct warranting her
disbarment.'

RULING: YES. While respondent blatantly violated particular Canons of Judicial Ethics
with her participation in the alleged marriage scam, she similarly breached the following
Canons on the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct xxx
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession xxx

29
Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law.
Membership in the bar is an essential requirement for membership in the bench. "[T]he
moral fitness of a judge also reflects his [or her] moral fitness as a lawyer.".
Consequently, a judge who violates the code of judicial conduct similarly violates his or
her lawyer's oath.
Respondent's act of heedlessly solemnizing marriages in utter disregard of the law and
jurisprudence clearly constitutes gross misconduct. The repetitiveness of her act shows
her clear intent to violate the law. She disregarded the lawyer's oath, which mandates
lawyers to support the Constitution and obey the laws. In view of this, either the penalty
of suspension or disbarment is warranted.
Rule 138, Section 27 provides:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor.
- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission
to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied)

Gross misconduct is an "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment." To consider
gross misconduct "the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of established rule must be manifest."
Although it is true that marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code merit exemption
from a marriage license, respondent should have complied with the mandate of
personally ascertaining the circumstances of cohabitation of the parties. Records reveal
that the declarations embodied in the required joint affidavit of cohabitation of the
parties do not actually represent the accurate circumstances of their alleged
cohabitation.134
In addition, there were marriages solemnized by respondent involving foreigners who
only submitted affidavits in lieu of a certificate of legal capacity to marry.135 In cases
where one or both of the contracting parties are foreigners, Article 21136 of the Family
Code provides that a certificate of legal capacity to marry is necessary before the
acquisition of a marriage license. As the solemnizing officer, respondent should have
ensured that pertinent requirements were secured before the issuance of the marriage

30
license. Thus, the absence of a certificate of legal capacity to marry should have
prompted her to question the propriety of the issuance.
The connivance between respondent and the court employees is settled. The court
employees acted as "'fixers' and 'facilitators" that mediated between the judges and the
contacting parties. Apparent are the superimpositions and erasures in the addresses of
the contracting parties so they would appear to be residents of either Barili or Liloan,
Cebu. For the contracting parties to easily obtain their marriage license, discrepancies
between their true addresses as declared in their marriage certificates and their
addresses in their marriage licenses were made. The contracting parties were able to
get married despite incomplete requirements. Thus, the handwritten marginal notes of
monetary figures attached to the marriage certificates show the presence of
consideration.
Respondent used her authority as a judge to make a mockery of marriage. As a judicial
officer, she is expected to know the law on solemnization of marriages. "A judge is not
only bound by oath to apply the law; he [or she] must also be conscientious and
thorough in doing so. Certainly, judges, by the very delicate nature of their office, should
be more circumspect in the performance of their duties."
Similarly, as a lawyer who is an officer of the court, respondent should have not
permitted herself to be an instrument of any violation of law. Her careless attention in
dispensing with the necessary requirements of marriage and in conniving with court
employees to further monetary interests underscores her utter disregard of the sanctity
of marriage.
Any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his or her professional dealings or in a
private capacity, is basis for suspension or disbarment. Possession of good character is
a fundamental requirement not only for admission to the bar but also for the
continuance of exercising the privilege to practice law.146 However, as a rule,
disbarment is only warranted in cases of misconduct that "seriously affect the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court."
Respondent's undue haste in repeatedly solemnizing marriages despite incomplete and
irregular requirements shows indifference to her role as an officer of the court. The
repetitiveness of her acts shows her proclivity in transgressing the law and protecting
these violations with her authority. A lawyer, as an officer and an essential partner of the
court in the solemn task of giving justice, is given the grave obligation of maintaining the
integrity of the courts. 148 This is especially so with judges. A judge is "the visible
representation of law and justice from whom the people draw their will and awareness
to obey the law. For the judge to return that regard, the latter must be the first to abide
by the law and weave an example for the others to follow."

8. ARNADO V. ATTY ADAZA (A.C. NO. 9834, 768 SCRA 172, AUG. 26, 2015

31
FACTS: Atty. Samuel B. Arnado (complainant) called the attention of the Court to the
practice of respondent Atty. Homobono A. Adaza 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 and recieved certification stating that Atty. Adaza failed to
comply with the requirements of Bar Matter No. 850. Respondent enumerated his
achievements as a lawyer and claimed that he had been practicing law for about 50
years. Respondent further claimed that he had written five bookS. Thus, he asked for a
reconsideration of the notice for him to undergo MCLE. He asked for an exemption from
MCLE compliance, or in the alternative, for him to be allowed to practice law while
complying with the MCLE requirements. The OBC found that respondent had been
remiss in his responsibilities as a lawyer. The OBC 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. The
OBC recommended that respondent be declared a delinquent member of the Bar and
guilty of non-compliance with the MCLE requirements.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is administratively liable for his failure to comply with the
MCLE requirements.
RULING: The respondent is administratively liable. The records of the MCLE Office
showed that respondent failed to comply with the four compliance periods. The records
also showed that respondent filed an application for exemption only on 5 January 2009.
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.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 to declare such lawyers as delinquent members of the IBP.
The OBC recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for six
months.

9. VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, SR., Complainant vs. ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ,

Respondent. A.C. No. 10911 JUNE 6, 2017

FACTS: Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is a disbarment case filed by
Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr. against respondent-lawyer Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, for failure
to comply with the MCLE requirements. The respondent’s act of deliberately and
unlawfully misleading the courts, parties and counsels concerned into believing that he

32
had complied with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements,
when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct in violation of
the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 1, /Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he falsified his MCLE Compliance Number. The IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), after thorough investigation, and careful
evaluation of pieces of evidence submitted by the complainant (respondent opted not to
heed the directive of the Commission to file comment and position papers),
recommended that Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez be disbarred and his name be stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys, which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of
Governors.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent be administratively disciplined based on the
allegations in the complaint and evidence on record?
RULING: YES. Respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850.
First. It was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850. No less
than the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent had not
complied with the first and second compliance period of the MCLE.
Second. Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE
compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently false
information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times, as
per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so
doing, he indeed misled the courts, litigants – his own clients included – professional
colleagues, and all others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false
information.
Respondent's act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a
mockery of the courts, especially this Court, considering that it is this Court that
authored the rules and regulations that the respondent violated.
The Lawyer’s Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires commitment to
obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both court
and client, among others. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes (Canon 1), he shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01), he owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court (Canon 10), he shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be mislead by any
artifice (Rule 10.01), he owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed upon him (Canon 17), and he shall serve his client
with competence and diligence (Canon 18)
In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also put his own
clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client's cause as
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect.25 In so doing, respondent
violated his duty to his clients.26Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR provide:

33
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed upon him.
CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Third. The respondent also repeatedly failed to obey legal orders of the trial court, the
IBP-CBD, and also this Court despite due notice. In the special civil action above-cited,
the trial court directed the respondent to file a comment on a motion which raised in
issue respondent's use of a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings but he did
not file any. This Court also directed respondent to file a comment on the instant
complaint but he failed to do so.28 We then issued a show cause order against the
respondent to explain why he should not be disciplined or held in contempt for failing to
file the required comment but again, respondent did not heed this court's order.29 The
IBP-CBD also notified the respondent to appear before it for mandatory
conference/hearing but the said notice was also ignored.
Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them
should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be
extended to the judicial branch of the government, which is absolutely essential if our
government is to be a government of laws and not of men.
Clearly, respondent's act of ignoring the said court orders despite notice violates the
lawyer's oath and runs counter to the precepts of the CPR. By his repeated dismissive
conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of
the Court.
Taken altogether, considering respondent's act of using a false MCLE compliance
number in his pleadings35, his repeated failure to obey legal orders36, and the fact that
he had already been sanctioned twice by this Court on separate cases37, We are
constrained to affirm the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution No. XXI-2014-685,
recommending his disbarment to prevent him from further engaging in legal practice.

10. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MARIA LOURDES SERENO (GR. NO

237428, MAY 11, 2018)
Facts: The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) filed a petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto
to declare as void respondent’s appointment as Chief justice of the Supreme Court and
to oust and altogether exclude respondent therefrom.

Respondent served as member of the faculty of UP College of Law from 1986 to 2006
and while being employed at UP Law, from 2003-2006, Respondent was concurrently
employed as legal counsel of the Republic in the PIATCO cases and was a Deputy
Commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights. For 20 years of service, only 11
SALNs were allegedly filed.

34
When the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant, the JBC directed the applicants
to submit documents, among which are all the previous SALNs. Sereno was not able to
submit all the previous SALNs required considering that that most of the government
records in the academe are more than 15 years old and it would be impossible to
retrieve all of those files. Despite this, on a report to the JBC, Sereno was said to have
complete requirements. O August 2012, Sereno was appointed as Chief Justice.

The OSG files a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno and argues that quo warranto
is an available remedy because what is being sought is to question the validity of her
appointment. OSG maintains that the SC has jurisdiction, citing AM No. 10-4-20-SC
which created a permanent Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards, tasked to
investigate complaints involving graft and corruption and ethical violations against
members of the SC and contending that this is not a political question because such
issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution,
laws, JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics.

OSG seeks to oust Sereno from her position as CJ on the ground that Sereno failed to
show that she is a person of proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for
membership in the Judiciary under Section 7(3), Article 8 of the Constitution. The failure
to submit her SALN, which is a legal obligation, should have disqualified Sereno from
being a candidate; therefore, she has no right to hold the office. Good faith cannot be
considered as a defense since the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. 3019)
and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA No.
6713) are special laws and are thus governed by the concept of malum prohibitum,
wherein malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial.

Sereno contends that an impeachable officer may only be ousted through

impeachment. Sereno contends that the clear intention of the framers of the
Constitution was to create an exclusive category of public officers who can be removed
only by impeachment and not otherwise. Impeachment was chosen as the method of
removing certain high-ranking government officers to shield them from harassment suits
that will prevent them from performing their functions which are vital to the continued
operations of government. Sereno likewise posits that if a Member of the SC can be
ousted through quo warranto initiated by the OSG, the Congress’ “check” on the SC
through impeachment would be rendered inutile. Furthermore, Sereno argues that it is
already time-barred. Section 11, Rule 66 provides that a petition for quo warranto must
be filed within one (1) year from the “cause of ouster” and not from the “discovery” of the
disqualification.

Moreover, Sereno contends that the Court cannot presume that she failed to file her
SALNs because as a public officer, she enjoys the presumption that her appointment to

35
office was regular. OSG failed to overcome the presumption created by the certifications
from UP HRDO that she had been cleared of all administrative responsibilities and
charges. Her integrity is a political question which can only be decided by the JBC and
the President. Regarding her missing SALNs, Sereno contends that the fact that SALNs
are missing cannot give rise to the inference that they are not filed. The fact that 11
SALNs were filed should give an inference to a pattern of filing, not of non-filing.

Issue: Whether or not Respondent will be removed from the position, through a quo
warranto proceeding, due to the non-compliance of the “SALN requirement”

Ruling: YES. A quo warranto petition is allowed against impeachable officials and SC

has jurisdiction. In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by appointment,
what is determined is the legality of the appointment. The title to a public office may not
be contested collaterally but only directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Usurpation of a
public office is treated as a public wrong and carries with it public interest, and as such,
it shall be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines through the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor.

Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution states that “A public officer or employee shall,
upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.” This has likewise been
required by RA 3019 and RA 6713. “Failure to comply” with the law is a violation of law,
a “prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth, which may result in the dismissal from
service of the public officer.” It is a clear breach of the ethical standards set for public
officials and employees. The filing of the SALN is so important for purposes of
transparency and accountability that failure to comply with such requirement may result
not only in dismissal from the public service but also in criminal liability. Section 11 of
R.A. No. 6713 even provides that non-compliance with this requirement is not only
punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine, it may also result in disqualification to hold
public office.

Because the Chief Justice is a public officer, she is constitutionally and statutorily
mandated to perform a positive duty to disclose all of his assets and liabilities.
According to Sereno herself in her dissenting opinion in one case, those who accept a
public office do so cum onere, or with a burden, and are considered as accepting its
burdens and obligations, together with its benefits. They thereby subject themselves to
all constitutional and legislative provisions relating thereto, and undertake to perform all
the duties of their office. The public has the right to demand the performance of those
duties. More importantly, while every office in the government service is a public trust,
no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an
individual than a seat in the Judiciary.

36
Noncompliance with the SALN requirement indubitably reflects on a person’s integrity. It
is not merely a trivial or a formal requirement. The contention that the mere non-filing
does not affect Sereno’s integrity does not persuade considering that RA 6713 and RA
3019 are malum prohibitum and not malum in se. Thus, it is the omission or commission
of that act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines
whether or not the provision has been violated. Malice or criminal intent is completely
immaterial.

Failure to file a truthful, complete and accurate SALN would likewise amount to
dishonesty if the same is attended by malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make
false statements.

The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from those applicants who are
incumbent Associate Justices, absent which, the applicant ought not to have been
interviewed, much less been considered for nomination. From the minutes of the
meeting of the JBC, it appeared that Sereno was singled out from the rest of the
applicants for having failed to submit a single piece of SALN for her years of service in
UP Law. It is clear that JBC did not do away with the SALN requirement, but still
required substantial compliance. Subsequently, it appeared that it was only Sereno who
was not able to substantially comply with the SALN requirement, and instead of
complying, Sereno wrote a letter containing justifications why she should no longer be
required to file the SALNs.

Indubitably, Sereno not only failed to substantially comply with the submission of the
SALNs but there was no compliance at all. Dishonesty is classified as a grave offense
the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. A person aspiring
to public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law.
Nothing less is expected. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon
one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a
public officer or employee.

37