Case Digest (A.C. No. 11641)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 11641)
Facts:
Marilu C. Turla v. Atty. Jose M. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019, the Supreme Court En Banc, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. This administrative disciplinary case arose from a verified complaint filed October 8, 2010 before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Marilu C. Turla (complainant/petitioner) against Atty. Jose M. Caringal (respondent), who was counsel for the oppositor in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479, RTC Quezon City, Branch 222.In July–August 2010 Turla obtained an August 2, 2010 Certification from the MCLE Office showing that Atty. Caringal had not complied with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements for the Second (MCLE II: April 15, 2004–April 14, 2007) and Third (MCLE III: April 25, 2007–April 14, 2010) compliance periods. Despite that Certification, Caringal signed and filed multiple pleadings in several cases (including Special Proceedings Q09‑64479; Civil Case Q09‑64850, RTC Quezon City Branch 221; Civil Case No. 09‑269, RTC Makati Branch 59; and petitions before the Court of Appeals) that bore the notation “MCLE Exemption II & III Rec. No. 000659126 Pasig 8.10.10.” Turla alleged that the referenced receipt was not for an exemption but was for payment of the MCLE non‑compliance fee.
Caringal answered that he had attempted to comply but encountered administrative errors in crediting MCLE units; he paid Php1,000 on January 7, 2009 (for what he called an “exemption fee” for MCLE I) and on August 10, 2010 paid non‑compliance fees totaling Php2,000 for MCLE II and III. The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD found Caringal had indeed failed to complete MCLE II and III but had paid the non‑compliance fees (Official Receipt No. 0659126); he concluded Caringal falsely asserted exemption status in pleadings, recommended a reprimand with stern warning, and noted mitigating belated compliance as of March 11, 2011.
The IBP Board of Governors, however, adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report with modification and resolved on April 18, 2015 to suspend Caringal from the practice of law for three years. A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 26, 2016. Caringal filed a Petition for Review by Certiorari with the Court; the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation on August 1, 2017. The OBC recommended affirming the three‑year suspension, emphasizing Caringal’s repeated false MCLE-exemption statements in multiple pleadings and concluding they negated any claim of good faith.
The Supreme Court, after considering applicable MCLE rules (Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules, and Bar Matter No. 1922), the IBP and OBC findings, and relevant precedents, denied the petition and imposed suspension for three years for knowingly and willfully misrepresenting his MCLE status and otherwise violating his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issues:
- Did Atty. Jose M. Caringal commit professional misconduct by indicating in multiple court pleadings that he was exempt from MCLE II and III when he had only paid non‑compliance fees?
- If misconduct is established, is suspension from the practice of law for three years an appropriate penalty?
- Does payment of the MCLE non‑compliance fee operate as an exemption from MCLE or preclude disciplinary action for false statements of MCLE status?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)