Arnado vs. Adaza

Factual Background

The complaint arose from a letter dated March 15, 2013 by Samuel B. Arnado calling the Court's attention to the practice of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza of indicating in his pleadings from 2009 to 2012 expressions such as "MCLE application for exemption under process" and "MCLE Application for Exemption for Reconsideration." An inquiry with the MCLE Office produced a certification dated January 2, 2013 from Prof. Myrna S. Feliciano, Executive Director of the MCLE Office, stating that Atty. Adaza, roll number 14118, did not comply with the requirements of Bar Matter No. 850 for the First, Second, and Third Compliance Periods, and that an application for exemption filed in January 2009 was denied by the MCLE Governing Board on January 14, 2009.

Procedural History

The Court referred the matter to the MCLE Committee by Resolution dated June 17, 2013. The MCLE Governing Board forwarded an Evaluation, Report and Recommendation which reached the Court in August 2013. The Court directed the clerk on December 9, 2013 to furnish respondent with the complainant's letter and required respondent to file his comment within ten days. Atty. Adaza filed a Compliance and Comment dated February 3, 2014. The Court referred that submission to the Office of the Bar Confidant by Resolution dated June 2, 2014. The OBC filed its Report and Recommendation dated November 25, 2014. The Court issued its decision on August 26, 2015.

MCLE Governing Board Evaluation

The MCLE Governing Board reported that Atty. Adaza had applied for exemption on January 5, 2009 on the ground of "expertise in law" under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850. The Board denied that application on January 14, 2009 because the submission failed to establish sufficient, satisfactory and convincing proof of expertise in a certain area of law. The Board noted that Atty. Adaza did not apply for exemption for the Third Compliance Period and that there was no record of a timely motion for reconsideration until much later.

Respondent’s Contentions

In his Compliance and Comment, Atty. Adaza asserted that he did not receive the MCLE Office's denial and that the notice relied on information furnished by the complainant, whom he alleged belonged to the political opponents who controlled local institutions. He narrated extensive professional achievements and publications and claimed entitlement to exemption or, alternatively, permission to continue practicing while complying with MCLE requirements. He maintained that administrative lapses, including his secretary's alleged failure to send a follow-up letter dated February 7, 2012, and the MCLE Office's delayed communication, explained his conduct.

OBC Findings and Recommendation

The OBC found that Atty. Adaza had filed an exemption application only for the First and Second Compliance Periods and that the MCLE Governing Board denied that application on January 14, 2009. The OBC reported that Prof. Feliciano informed respondent of the denial by letter dated October 1, 2012, and that there was no record of a timely motion for reconsideration before that date. The OBC observed that Bar Matter No. 1922 requires counsel to indicate in pleadings either an MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, and that under Rule 12 of Bar Matter No. 850 and Section 12 of the MCLE Implementing Regulations, non-compliance may result in dismissal of the case and striking of pleadings. The OBC recommended that respondent be declared a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, be suspended from the practice of law for six months, be directed to comply with MCLE requirements, and be fined the applicable non-compliance fees.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented to the Court was whether Atty. Homobono A. Adaza is administratively liable for his failure to comply with the MCLE requirements prescribed in Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing regulations.

Findings of Non-Compliance

The Court found that the records of the MCLE Office showed respondent's failure to comply with the First, Second, Third and Fourth Compliance Periods, covering April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2013. The Court noted that respondent's exemption application was filed after the relevant compliance periods had ended and that he did not apply for exemption for the Third Compliance Period. Although the MCLE Governing Board acted on the application on January 14, 2009, the MCLE Office failed to inform respondent promptly and only communicated the denial on October 1, 2012, after outside inquiries. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on October 23, 2013, which the MCLE Governing Board denied with finality on November 28, 2013, notice of which was sent on November 29, 2013.

Reasoning on Accountability and Procedural Failures

The Court recognized shortcomings of the MCLE Office in delaying communication of the denial of exemption. The Court nevertheless found that respondent bore responsibility for his non-compliance. He did not timely follow up his application, he filed the exemption application late, he did not pursue compliance for successive periods, and he misrepresented in pleadings that his "MCLE Application for Exemption for Reconsideration" was pending when no motion for reconsideration had been filed at that time. The Court applied Section 12(5) of the MCLE Implementing Regulations, which grants a member sixty days from receipt of notification to explain or show compliance and prescribes listing as delinquent and non-permittal to practice in case of failure, and concluded that respondent remained delinquent for multiple compliance periods even after his partial registration for an MCLE program in February 2014.

Disposition and Penalties

The Court declared Atty. Homobono A. Adaza a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and suspended him from the practice of law for six months, or until he fully complied with MCLE requirements for the First through Fourth Compliance Periods