Samuel B. Arnado vs. Atty. Homobono A. Adaza Facts: In March 15, 2013, Arnado called the attention of the SC to the practice of Adaza of indicating “MCLE application for exemption under process” in his pleadings filed in 2009-2012, and “MCLE Application for Exemption for Reconsideration” in a pleading filed in 2012. Arnado informed the SC that he inquired from the MCLE Office of the status of Adaza’s compliance and received a Certification from the MCLE Executive Director that Adaza did not comply with the requirements of Bar Matter No. 850 for the periods: First Compliance Period (April 15, 2001 – April 14, 2004); Second Compliance Period (April 15, 2004 – April 14, 2007); and Third Compliance Period (April 15, 2007 – April 14, 2010). Also, his application for exemption from MCLE requirement on 2009 was denied by the MCLE Governors on the ground that the application did not meet the requirements of expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850. In his Comment, Adaza stated that he was wondering why his application for exemption could not be granted. Adaza then enumerated his achievements as a lawyer and claimed that he had been practicing law for about 50 years. He stated: 1. that he was the first outsider of the SC whom president Cory offered a seat as Justice of the SC but refused the intended appointment because he hid not like some of the Cory crowd; 2. That he almost single-handedly handled the case of Cory in canvassing of the results in the 1986 snap elections, discussing constitutional and legal issues which finally resulted to EDSA I revolution; 3. That he was one of the two lead counsels of Senator MDS in the national canvassing for President, the other counsel being the former Justice Serafin Cuevas; 4. The he handled the 1987 and 1989, as well as the 2003 Coup cases; 5. That he filed a case in the SC contesting the constitutionality of 2010 national elections; 6. That he filed a case together with another lawyer in the SC on the constitutionality of the Corona impeachment; 7. That he have been implementing and interpreting the Constitution and other laws as Governor of Misamis Oriental, Commission of Immigration and senior member of the Opposition in the regular Parliament in the Committee on Revision of Laws and Constitutional Amendments; 8. That he was the leading Opposition member Parliament that drafted the Omnibus Election Law; 9. That he was the leading member of the Parliament that prepared and orchestrated the debate in the complaint for impeachment against President Marcos; 10. That he has been engaged as lawyer for a number of lawyers who have exemptions from the MCLE. He also further claimed that he had written five books. The OBC recommended that Adaza be declared a delinquent member of the Bar and guilty of noncompliance with the MCLE requirements. It further recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six months. Issue: Is Adaza administratively liable for his failure to comply with the MCLE requirements?
Ruling: Yes. Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education “to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law”. Arnado’s letter covered Adaza’s pleadings filed in 2009 – 2012, which means he also failed to comply with the MCLE requirements for the Fourth Compliance Period (April 15, 2010 – April 14, 2013). According to the MCLE Governing Board, Adaza’s application for exemption covered First and Second Compliance Periods, but did not apply for exemption for the Third Compliance Period. The application for exemption was denied on January 2009, however, the MCLE Office failed to convey the denial of the application for exemption of Adaza, and only informed him in its letter dated October 1, 2012 when it received inquiries from complainants. Clearly, Adaza had been remised in his responsibilities by failing to comply with Bar Matter No. 850. But the MCLE Office is not without fault in this case. While it acted on Adaza’s application for exemption on January 14, 2009, it took the office three years to inform Adaza of the denial of his application. Hence, during the period when respondent indicated “MCLE application for exemption under process” in his pleadings, he was not aware of the action of the MCLE Governing Board on his application for exemption. However, after he had been informed of the denial of his application for exemption, it still took Adaza one year to file a motion for reconsideration. After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Adaza still took, and still taking, his time to satisfy the requirements of MCLE. In addition, when Adaza indicated “MCLE Application for Exemption for Reconsideration” in a pleading, he had not filed any motion for reconsideration before the MCLE Office. Adaza’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.
