A.C. No. 10911 - Mapalad, Sr. vs. Echanez

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10911)

Key Dates

Complaint for disbarment filed: October 16, 2009.
MCLE Office Certification of non‑compliance issued: September 30, 2009.
IBP‑CBD Investigating Commissioner’s report: December 17, 2013.
IBP Board of Governors Resolution adopting the recommendation: September 28, 2014.
Supreme Court disposition reflected in the record (decision rendered and circulation noted in the record).

Allegations

The complaint alleges that Atty. Echanez repeatedly indicated an MCLE Compliance Number (II‑0014038) in pleadings and court filings, including an appeal notice (May 22, 2009), appellants’ brief, a Petition for Injunction (Special Civil Action No. 3573), and a Motion for Leave of Court (July 13, 2009), but omitted the date of issuance. Inquiry with the MCLE Office produced a certification that the respondent had not complied with MCLE requirements for the first and second compliance periods (April 15, 2001–April 14, 2004; April 15, 2004–April 14, 2007). Complainant asserted that respondent’s use of a false MCLE compliance number constituted deliberate, unlawful, and deceitful conduct amounting to serious malpractice and grave misconduct, and prayed for disbarment.

Procedural History and Respondent’s Noncompliance

The Supreme Court required respondent to comment on the complaint (resolution dated February 10, 2010), but respondent failed to file a comment. A subsequent show‑cause resolution (July 11, 2011) again required a response; respondent did not comply. The IBP‑CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing (August 14, 2013); neither party appeared, and the IBP directed submission of position papers. Only the complainant filed a position paper. The IBP‑CBD Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment in a December 17, 2013 report. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation by Resolution No. XXI‑2014‑685 (September 28, 2014). No motions for reconsideration were filed.

Evidentiary Findings

The MCLE Office certification established that respondent had not complied with MCLE requirements for the specified compliance periods. The pleadings and court filings on record contained the respondent’s MCLE Compliance Number without a date and were filed despite the MCLE Office’s certification of non‑compliance. The record also shows multiple failures by respondent to obey court and IBP orders to file comments, to appear at mandatory conferences, and to respond to disciplinary process notifications.

Legal Issues Presented

The central issue is whether respondent’s conduct—using a false MCLE compliance number in pleadings, failing to obey orders of tribunals and the IBP, and having a prior disciplinary record—warrants administrative discipline up to and including disbarment. The record applies Bar Matter No. 850 (MCLE rules), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment and suspension), the Lawyer’s Oath, and specific Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (no unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct); Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (candor and not misleading the court); Canon 17 and Canon 18 (fidelity, competence, and diligence).

Court’s Analysis of Misconduct

MCLE Noncompliance and False Certification: The MCLE Office certification established noncompliance for two compliance periods. Notwithstanding that, respondent repeatedly placed an MCLE Compliance Number in court pleadings without indicating the date of issuance and despite lacking MCLE compliance. The Court treated this as intentionally supplying patently false information in judicial pleadings.
Deceit, Bad Faith and Misleading the Court: Filing pleadings that respondent knew contained false MCLE information was found to constitute manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. The Court emphasized that such conduct misleads courts, litigants (including the respondent’s own clients), and legal colleagues.
Violation of Professional Duties and Lawyer’s Oath: The conduct was held contrary to the Lawyer’s Oath and to the obligations under Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requiring obedience to law, truthfulness, fairness, good faith, and not consenting to falsehood in court. The Court noted that pleadings containing false information can be legally fatal to a client’s cause and therefore place clients at risk, implicating Canons 17 and 18 regarding fidelity, competence, and diligence.
Failure to Obey Court and IBP Orders: Respondent repeatedly ignored directions to file comments, show cause, and attend IBP mandatory conferences despite due notice. The Court regarded such disregard as a willful disobedience of lawful orders, contrary to the Lawyer’s

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10911)

Caption and Decision Data

Reported at 810 Phil. 355, En Banc; A.C. No. 10911, decided June 06, 2017; Decision by Justice Tijam.
Parties: Complainant — Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr.; Respondent — Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez.
Clerk of Court notice: Original decision received by the Office on July 14, 2017 at 3:10 p.m.; notice dated July 14, 2017 signed by Felipa G. Borlongan-Anama, Clerk of Court.

Nature of Proceeding and Relief Sought

Administrative disciplinary case originating from a verified Complaint for disbarment dated October 16, 2009, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Complainant prayed that the IBP recommend respondent’s disbarment to the Supreme Court.

Core Facts as Alleged by Complainant

The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 1635-1-784 (Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction) before the Municipal Trial Court in Santiago City, Isabela, in which complainant was one of the plaintiffs and respondent served as counsel for the defendants.
After judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 22, 2009 in which he indicated an MCLE Compliance Number, II-0014038, but failed to indicate the date of issue.
On appeal, respondent filed the appellants’ brief indicating only the MCLE Compliance Number (without date).
In Special Civil Action No. 3573, respondent, acting for the same clients, filed a Petition for Injunction again indicating only his MCLE Compliance Number.
Respondent filed a Motion for Leave of Court dated July 13, 2009 in that special civil action, indicating his MCLE Compliance Number but omitting the date of issue.

Evidence Concerning MCLE Compliance

Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent had no MCLE compliance on record.
The MCLE Office issued a Certification dated September 30, 2009 stating respondent had not complied with the MCLE requirements for the First Compliance Period (April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004) and the Second Compliance Period (April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007).
The record shows respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE compliance number in at least four pleadings (referenced notes 2–5).

Procedural History — Court and IBP Proceedings

February 10, 2010: The Supreme Court required respondent to file a comment within 10 days from notice; respondent failed to comply.
July 11, 2011: The Supreme Court issued a resolution requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt and again to file a comment; respondent again failed to comply.
August 14, 2013: IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing; none of the parties appeared despite due notice.
IBP directed submission of position papers within 10 days; only complainant filed his position paper reiterating allegations in the complaint.
December 17, 2013: The IBP‑CBD Investigating Commissioner rendered a report recommending disbarment: “ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ be DISBARRED and that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys upon finality of the decision.”
September 28, 2014: The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s report and recommended disbarment via Resolution No. XXI‑2014‑685, finding respondent’s violations supported by evidence and applicable law.
No motion for reconsideration was filed by either party before the IBP Board of Governors.

Specific Allegations of Misconduct

Deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties, and counsels into believing he had complied with MCLE requirements when he had not.
Indicating a purported MCLE Compliance Number (II-0014038) without the date of issue in multiple pleadings.
Repeatedly filing pleadings containing patently false information.
Repeated failure to obey legal orders of the trial court, the IBP‑CBD, and the Supreme Court despite due notice.
Prior disciplinary sanctions by the IBP and the Supreme Court for similar misconduct (notarial practice without commission).

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether respondent should be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint and the evidence on record.

Supreme Court Ruling — Holding

The Supreme Court answered the issue in the affirmative and DISBARRED respondent Anselmo S. Echanez from the practice of law and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
The Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XXI‑2014‑685 recommending disbarment.

Reasons and Legal Analysis — MCLE Non‑Compliance and Falsification

The MCLE Office’s certification established respondent’s non‑compliance with Bar Matter No. 850 (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) for the first and second compliance periods.
Despite non‑compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE compliance number in pleadings f