Case Digest (A.C. No. 9834)
Facts:
Samuel B. Arnado v. Atty. Homobono A. Adaza, A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Samuel B. Arnado wrote the Court a letter dated 15 March 2013 calling attention to respondent Atty. Homobono A. Adaza’s practice of indicating in court pleadings between 2009 and 2012 that his “MCLE application for exemption [was] under process” (and once “for Reconsideration”). Arnado asked the Court to verify respondent’s Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) status. The MCLE Office, through Prof. Myrna S. Feliciano, Executive Director, certified on 2 January 2013 that Adaza did not comply with Bar Matter No. 850 for the first three compliance periods (15 April 2001–14 April 2004; 15 April 2004–14 April 2007; 15 April 2007–14 April 2010) and that an application for exemption filed in January 2009 had been denied by the MCLE Governing Board on 14 January 2009.
By Resolution dated 17 June 2013 the Court referred the matter to the MCLE Committee for evaluation, report and recommendation. On 5 August 2013 the MCLE Office forwarded the case rollo and the MCLE Governing Board’s Evaluation, Report and Recommendation (dated 14 August 2013) which reiterated that respondent’s exemption request (for the First and Second periods) had been denied on 14 January 2009 and that respondent had not applied for exemption for the Third period.
The Court, in a 9 December 2013 Resolution, directed respondent to be furnished with Arnado’s letter and to file a comment. Respondent filed a Compliance and Comment dated 3 February 2014 asserting he did not receive the MCLE Office’s 5 August 2013 transmittal, claiming he had not been formally notified of the denial, and adducing extensive biographical and professional accomplishments as grounds for exemption or reconsideration; he also alleged bias by a local law firm and political actors. He requested exemption or, alternatively, permission to continue practicing while complying with MCLE.
On 2 June 2014 the Court referred respondent’s Compliance and Comment to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). The OBC’s Report and Recommendation dated 25 November 2014 found that respondent’s exemption application (filed 5 January 2009) had been denied and that the MCLE Office only informed him of that denial by letter dated 1 October 2012; the MCLE Governing Board recorded no motion for reconsideration until later. The OBC emphasized the MCLE Implementing Regulations’ consequences for non‑compliance (including striking pleadings from the records and listing as delinquent), and recommended a declaration of delinquency, a six‑month suspension from the practice of law, and directives to comply with MCLE requirements.
The Court took up the administrative case und...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is respondent Atty. Homobono A. Adaza administratively liable for failing to comply with the MCLE requirements...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)