[B.M. 850.

October 2, 2001]
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on
Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
Rule 1. PURPOSE

SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to
ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law.
Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the
MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program
in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least
thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units.

(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.

(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.

(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine
(9) credit units.

(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.

(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.

(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to
six (6) credit units.

Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD

SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three (3) months from the adoption of these
Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance periods
shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the MCLE requirement shall be divided into three (3) compliance
groups, namely:
(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila are assigned to Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to Compliance Group 2.
(c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward
compliance with the MCLE requirement.
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the program. Members admitted or readmitted to the
Bar after the establishment of the program shall be assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on the
date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall
end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply
with the program requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member shall be required to
complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of months remaining in the compliance period in

1
which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of education in legal ethics in
proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)

SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the
MCLE requirement under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyers participation in the MCLE activity. The following are the
guidelines for computing credit units and the supporting documents required therefor:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND
TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF
ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF
RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS
CERTIFICATION
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK
LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS
EDITOR
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF
BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR
LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW
DIRECTOR
Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either participatory or non-participatory.
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory credit units may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops,
dialogues or round table discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved
education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. Non-participatory credit units may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or
book review which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the members
practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)

SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed based on actual time spent in an education activity in hours to the
nearest one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS

SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the
Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;

2
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for
exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of
any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under
Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported
by documents.
Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to the implementing regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee,
continuing legal education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider and
certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal
education.
SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. All continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and the legal profession, including cross profession
activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral
advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials must
be distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free from interruption like telephone calls and other
distractions.
Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS

SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years,
which may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to
be accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee;
(b) Contain all information requested in the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date.
The provider shall include the member on the official record of attendance only if the members signature was obtained at the time of attendance at
the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date,
location, subject matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal
ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed
by the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date, location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the
IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The
provider shall make available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy
furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall
be subject to appropriate sanctions.
SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. The accreditation of a provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be denied if the
provider fails to comply with any of the requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the preceding period.
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the accreditation of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote
of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.
Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER

SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education activity or accreditation as a provider requires payment of the
appropriate fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees.
Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his
compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt,

3
specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after the end of the
members compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished
the MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a sufficient
record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in
Section 3 of Rule 5.
Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:

(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance
notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice
stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise
showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the following language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM
DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit units for
compliance. Credit units earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless
units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.
Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall
pay a non-compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance
has expired, shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The investigation of a member
for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the active rate against a member during the period he/
she is listed as a delinquent member.
Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT

SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of
compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units to meet the
requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on inactive status. These credit units may not be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to
satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in
nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE Committee.
Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court
as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court
and associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three
(3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
SEC. 2. Duty of committee. The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the
approval of the Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with the approval of
the Supreme Court.
SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as may
be necessary to perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.
SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. The MCLE Committee shall submit to the Supreme Court for approval, an annual budget [for a
subsidy] to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000, following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in
the Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on 02 October 2001.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and
Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on official leave.

4
 EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA

SERENO, J.:

This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez (complainant) against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla (respondent) of Padilla Padilla
Bautista Law Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling of her case.
The records disclose that complainant and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them with the Regional Trial
Court of Manila (RTC).
In a Decision[1] dated 28 June 2002, penned by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang (Judge Carandang), the RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale
executed in favor of complainant be cancelled; and that the latter pay the complainant therein, Elisa Duigan (Duigan), attorneys fees and moral
damages.
Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered them to file their Appellants
Brief. They chose respondent to represent them in the case. On their behalf, he filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants Brief.
Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The CA granted the Motion in a Resolution[2] dated 16 December 2003.
No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution dismissing the appeal was filed by the couple. Complainant claims that because respondent
ignored the Resolution, he acted with deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law.[3] Complainant and her husband failed to file an
appeal, because respondent never informed them of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims that she asked respondent several times
about the status of the appeal, but despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response [sic], to the damage and prejudice of the spouses.[4]
The Resolution became final and executory on 8 January 2004. Complainant was informed of the Resolution sometime in July 2005, when the
Sheriff of the RTC came to her house and informed her of the Resolution.
On 9 September 2005, complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint[5] with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), seeking the disbarment of respondent on the following grounds: deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for moral
damages in the amount of ₱350,000.
Through an Order[6] dated 12 September 2005, Director of Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent to submit an answer to the
Complaint. In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer,[7] respondent prayed for the outright dismissal of the Complaint.
Respondent explained that he was not the lawyer of complainant. He averred that prior to the mandatory conference set by the IBP on 13
December 2005, he had never met complainant, because it was her husband who had personally transacted with him. According to respondent,
the husband despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because according to him the period given by the CA was to lapse
within two or three days.[8] Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed that it is this pleading
which was required.[9]
Before filing the Memorandum, respondent advised complainants husband to settle the case. The latter allegedly gestured approval of the advice.
[10]

After the husband of complainant picked up the Memorandum for filing, respondent never saw or heard from him again and thus assumed that the
husband heeded his advice and settled the case. When respondent received an Order from the CA requiring him to file a comment on the Motion
to Dismiss filed by Duigan, he instructed his office staff to contact Mr. Hernandez thru available means of communication, but to no avail.[11] Thus,
when complainants husband went to the office of respondent to tell the latter that the Sheriff of the RTC had informed complainant of the CAs
Resolution dismissing the case, respondent was just as surprised. The lawyer exclaimed, KALA KO BA NAKIPAG AREGLO NA KAYO.[12]
In his 5 January 2009 Report,[13] IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found that respondent violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code). He recommended that respondent be suspended from practicing law from 3 to 6 months.
The board of governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XIX-2010-452 on 28 August 2010. Therein, they resolved to adopt and approve the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[14] He prayed for the relaxation of the application of the Canons of the Code. On 14 January 2012,
the IBP board of governors passed Resolution No. XX-2012-17[15] partly granting his Motion and reducing the penalty imposed to one-month
suspension from the practice of law.
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, acting Director for Bar Discipline Dennis A.B. Funa, through a letter[16] addressed to then Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona, transmitted the documents pertaining to the disbarment Complaint against respondent.
We adopt the factual findings of the board of governors of the IBP. This Court, however, disagrees with its Decision to reduce the penalty to one-
month suspension. We thus affirm the six-month suspension the Board originally imposed in its 28 August 2010 Resolution.
Respondent insists that he had never met complainant prior to the mandatory conference set for the disbarment Complaint she filed against him.
However, a perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court revealed that he had signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants
therein, including complainant and her husband.[17] The pleading starts with the following sentence: DEFENDANT[S]-APPELLANTS, by counsel,
unto this Honorable Court submit the Memorandum and further allege that: x x x.[18] Nowhere does the document say that it was filed only on
behalf of complainants husband.
It is further claimed by respondent that the relation created between him and complainants husband cannot be treated as a client-lawyer
relationship, viz:
It is no more than a client needing a legal document and had it prepared by a lawyer for a fee. Under the factual milieu and
circumstances, it could not be said that a client entrusted to a lawyer handling and prosecution of his case that
calls for the strict application of the Code; x x x[19]

As proof that none of them ever intended to enter into a lawyer-client relationship, he also alleges that complainants husband never contacted him
after the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal. According to respondent, this behavior was very unusual if he really believed that he engaged the
formers services.[20]

5
Complainant pointed out in her Reply[21] that respondent was her lawyer, because he accepted her case and an acceptance fee in the amount of
₱7,000.
According to respondent, however, [C]ontrary to the complainants claim that he charged ₱7,000 as acceptance fee, the fee was only for the
preparation of the pleading which is even low for a Memorandum of Appeal: x x x.[22]
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.[23] Once a
lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyers duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.[24] Respondent has failed to fulfill this
duty.
According to respondent, he merely drafted the pleading that complainants husband asked from him. Respondent also claims that he filed a
Memorandum of Appeal, because he honestly believed that this was the pleading required, based on what complainants husband said.
The IBP Investigating Commissioners observation on this matter, in the 5 January 2009 Report, is correct. Regardless of the particular pleading
his client may have believed to be necessary, it was respondents duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions, viz:
Having seen the Decision dated 18 June 2002 of the trial court, respondent should have known that the mode of appeal to
the Court of Appeals for said Decision is by ordinary appeal under Section 2(a) Rule 41 of the1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure. In all such cases, Rule 44 of the said Rules applies.[25]

When the RTC ruled against complainant and her husband, they filed a Notice of Appeal. Consequently, what should apply is the rule on ordinary
appealed cases or Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Rule 44 requires that the appellants brief be filed after the records of the case have
been elevated to the CA. Respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know this procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads:
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

The obligations of lawyers as a consequence of their Canon 5 duty have been expounded in Dulalia, Jr. v. Cruz,[26] to wit:
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and
legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law.
This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal
principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and
diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.

In his MR, respondent begged for the consideration of the IBP, claiming that the reason for his failure to file the proper pleading was that he did not
have enough time to acquaint himself thoroughly with the factual milieu of the case. The IBP reconsidered and thereafter significantly reduced the
penalty originally imposed.
Respondents plea for leniency should not have been granted.
The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence.
Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was
not complainants lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently study a case he had
agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainants husband
only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellants Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time to file
the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.[27]
Moreover, respondent does not deny that he was given notice of the fact that he filed the wrong pleading. However, instead of explaining his side
by filing a comment, as ordered by the appellate court, he chose to ignore the CAs Order. He claims that he was under the presumption that
complainant and her husband had already settled the case, because he had not heard from the husband since the filing of the latters
Memorandum of Appeal.
This explanation does not excuse respondents actions.
First of all, there were several remedies that respondent could have availed himself of, from the moment he received the Notice from the CA to the
moment he received the disbarment Complaint filed against him. But because of his negligence, he chose to sit on the case and do nothing.
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule
18.04 of the Code, which reads:
18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
clients request for information.

6
If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, the least respondent could have done was to inform the CA by filing a Notice of
Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. He could have thus explained why he was no longer the counsel of complainant and her husband in the
case and informed the court that he could no longer contact them.[28] His failure to take this measure proves his negligence.
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigans Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of
the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the clients case, viz:
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.

Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty would render them liable for
disciplinary action.[29]
Respondent has failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates his duties to his client, he engages in unethical and
unprofessional conduct for which he should be held accountable.[30]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered into the personal records of respondent as a member of the bar and furnished to the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of the country for their information and guidance.
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

7
 SPS.WILLIAMS VS. ATTY. ENRIQUEZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez stands charged with unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney. The charges are contained in the Joint
Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment[1] filed by the spouses David W. Williams and Marisa B. Williams.

It appears that respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 13443[2] pending before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the defendants. According to the complainant-spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot
subject of the controversy. A Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was then issued in her favor, stating that she is Filipino, married to David W.
Williams, an American citizen.[3] On January 8, 2004, respondent charged her with falsification of public documents before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Dumaguete City. The complaint was docketed as I.S. No. 2004-34.[4]

The spouses Williams further alleged, thus:

21. That, in malicious violation of the rules governing the practice of law, Attorney Rudy T. Enriquez cited outdated material in his complaint-
affidavit (Annex A-1) and in his comments to counter-affidavit (Annex A-2). He then knowingly applied this stale law in a perverse fashion to argue
that Marisa Batacan Williams automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and was thus prohibited to own land in the
Philippines, thereby making her guilty of falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property in Negros Oriental.

2.2. That in paragraph #1 of her counter-affidavit (Annex A-2) Marisa cites Article IV, Section 4 of
the 1987 Constitution, which provides that she would not lose her citizenship when she married an American
unless she renounced it in a specific act.

2.3 That, in reply, Attorney Enriquez, quotes more outdated law, declaring that her act of marrying
her husband was equivalent to renouncing her citizenship. He also doggedly attempts to show that the 1987
Constitution supports his position, not Marisas (Annex A-4).

Complainants pointed out that the respondent is a retired judge, who knows that the false charge (that Marisa Williams is an
American) will not prevail in the end.[6]

In his Comments by Way of Motion to Dismiss,[7] respondent enumerated matters which to his mind were evidence of the acts of
falsification of complainant Marisa Williams. He insisted that the complaint for disbarment was a mere tactic to divert attention from the criminal
charges against the complainants, and that the charges against him were bereft of any factual basis.

On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.[8] Forthwith, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled the case for mandatory conference/hearing. However, only the
respondent appeared. The parties were then directed to submit their verified position papers.

In their Position Paper, complainants claimed that respondent had maliciously and knowingly filed fabricated cases against them and
that his acts were forms of attempted extortion. They also adopted their joint complaint-affidavit by way of incorporation, along with their other
pleadings.

For his part, respondent maintained that complainant Marisa Williams was no longer a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines as a
result of her marriage to David Williams.

In her Report and Recommendation dated June 10, 1995, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala ruled that respondent was guilty
of gross ignorance of the law and should be suspended for six (6) months. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted the foregoing
recommendation in its Resolution No. XVII-2005-114 dated October 22, 2005, with the modification that respondent be reprimanded, with a
warning and advice to study each and every opinion he may give to his clients.

The Court agrees that respondent is administratively liable for his actuations. As found by the Investigating Commissioner:

8
 There is no evidence shown by respondent that complainant Marisa Bacatan-Williams has
renounced her Filipino citizenship except her Certificate of Marriage, which does not show that she has
automatically acquired her husbands citizenship upon her marriage to him. The cases cited by respondent are
not applicable in this case as it is clear that they refer to aliens acquiring lands in the Philippines.

The Bar has been integrated for the attainment of the following objectives: (a) elevate the standards
of the legal profession, (b) improve the administration of justice, and (c) to enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively (In re: Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 49 SCRA 22). In line with these
objectives of the Integrated Bar, lawyers must keep themselves abreast of legal developments. To do this,
the lawyer must walk with the dynamic movements of the law and jurisprudence. He must acquaint himself at
least with the newly promulgated laws, the recent decisions of the Supreme Court and of the significant
decisions of the Court of Appeals. There are other executive orders, administrative circulars, regulations and
other rules promulgated by other competent authorities engaged in the administration of justice. The lawyers life
is one of continuous and laborious study, otherwise, his skill and knowledge of the law and related disciplines will
lag behind and become obscure due to obsoleteness (Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.)

As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be
updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence.[10] Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[11] As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the
latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client.[12] In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than
the Constitution,[13] the most basic law of the land.[14] Implicit in a lawyers mandate to protect a clients interest to the best of his/her ability and with
utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs.[15] Thus, in
championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyers oath, but
should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latters cause be dismissed on a technical ground.[16] Ignorance encompasses
both substantive and procedural laws.[17]

We find too harsh the recommended penalty of the Investigating Commissioner. It must be stressed that the power to disbar or
suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as
an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.[18] Pursuant to the IBP Commission on Bar
Disciplines Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,[19] and considering further that this is respondents first infraction, we find that the penalty of
reprimand as recommended by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, will suffice.

We likewise note that in their pleadings in this case, the parties repeatedly invoked their arguments in their pending cases below.
Thus, we find it unnecessary to rule over such arguments, which have yet to be determined on the merits in the courts a quo.

WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully study the opinions he may
give to his clients. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.