A.C. No. 11641 - Turla vs. Caringal

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11641)

Factual Background

Complainant Marilu C. Turla discovered in July 2010 that Atty. Jose M. Caringal had not completed Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the Second and Third compliance periods. She secured a Certification dated August 2, 2010 from the MCLE Office showing non-compliance for MCLE II and III. Despite that certification, Atty. Caringal signed numerous pleadings between July and December 2010 in several cases and indicated after his signature the notation “MCLE Exemption II & III Rec. No. 000659126 Pasig 8.10.10,” a notation later shown to relate to Official Receipt No. 0659126 for payment of non-compliance fees rather than to any exemption certificate.

Pleadings and Allegations

In her verified Complaint dated October 8, 2010, Turla charged Atty. Caringal with failure to take MCLE II and III as required under Bar Matter No. 850, and with violating his lawyer’s oath not to do any falsehood by representing he was exempt when he had paid a non-compliance fee. She identified specific pleadings in which Atty. Caringal made the allegedly false MCLE representations, and alleged that he continued to file pleadings after being confronted.

Respondent’s Answer and Explanation

In his Answer, Atty. Caringal contended that the Complaint was retaliatory and asserted events that explained his MCLE record. He stated that he had incomplete MCLE units from the First compliance period and that units he completed in 2008 were erroneously applied to MCLE I. He paid P1,000 on January 7, 2009 for his uncompleted MCLE I and received a Certificate of Compliance for MCLE I on January 19, 2009. Upon verification he was told he still had units to complete for MCLE II. On August 10, 2010 he paid P2,000 as non-compliance fees for MCLE II and III. He later completed the required MCLE units by March 11, 2011.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendation

Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found that Atty. Caringal failed to complete MCLE II and III within the compliance periods and that his payment evidenced by Official Receipt No. 0659126 was for non-compliance fees pursuant to Bar Matter No. 850, Rule 13, Section 1. The Commissioner observed that the sixty-day period for listing a delinquent member under Rule 13, Section 2 begins to run only after a Non-Compliance Notice is sent, and the complainant did not establish that such notice was ever received. The Commissioner concluded the matter of delinquent listing was moot because Atty. Caringal belatedly complied by March 11, 2011. Nonetheless, the Commissioner found that Atty. Caringal breached his oath to do no falsehood by indicating an exemption when he had paid only non-compliance fees, and that this misrepresentation endangered the legal effect of pleadings and risked expunction. Considering belated compliance as mitigating, the Commissioner recommended that Atty. Caringal be reprimanded with a stern warning.

IBP Board of Governors’ Action

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report with modification and resolved on April 18, 2015 that Atty. Caringal be suspended from the practice of law for three years for failure to comply with MCLE requirements and for misrepresenting that he had an MCLE exemption. The Board denied his motion for reconsideration on August 26, 2016.

Office of the Bar Confidant Report

Following Atty. Caringal’s petition for review by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant. The OBC, in its Report dated October 29, 2018, found the petition to be a rehash of matters already considered and emphasized that Atty. Caringal had falsely stated exemption status in eleven different pleadings. The OBC concluded that the number and repetition of false statements negated a good faith defense and demonstrated negligence toward clients and courts. It endorsed the IBP Board’s recommendation of a three-year suspension.

Issues Presented to the Court

The central issues were whether Atty. Caringal’s failure to complete MCLE II and III and his use of an Official Receipt for non-compliance fees in place of an exemption certificate constituted professional misconduct warranting discipline, and if so, whether suspension for three years was appropriate in view of mitigating circumstances such as belated compliance.

The Court’s Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Court affirmed that Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules require members to complete MCLE units each compliance period, to pay a non-compliance fee when applicable, and to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice within sixty days or face listing as a delinquent member. The Court explained that the non-compliance fee is a penalty and not an exemption. The Court found that there was no proof that a Non-Compliance Notice was sent to Atty. Caringal, and that he had in fact complied with MCLE II and III by March 11, 2011, rendering delinquent listing inapplicable. Notwithstanding, the Court held that Atty. Caringal knowingly and willfully misrepresented his MCLE status by repeatedly indicating exemption where none existed, in violation of BM No. 1922 then in force and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court relied on the authorities and implemented rules stating that counsel must indicate the number and date of issue of MCLE compliance or exemption in pleadings and that false statements risk expunction of pleadings and prejudice to clients. The Court found that the misrepresentations amounted to dishonest conduct under Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and to mislead the court in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and that t

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11641)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Marilu C. Turla filed a verified Complaint dated October 8, 2010 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines against Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal.
Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal was counsel for the oppositor in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222.
The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD submitted a Report and Recommendation finding misconduct and proposing discipline.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report with modification and recommended suspension of Atty. Caringal for three years.
Atty. Caringal sought reconsideration and then filed a Petition for Review by Certiorari with the Court, which referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended affirmance of a three-year suspension, and the Court denied the petition and imposed the suspension.

Key Factual Allegations

Marilu C. Turla secured a Certification dated August 2, 2010 from the MCLE Office showing that Atty. Caringal had not complied with the MCLE II and MCLE III compliance periods.
Atty. Caringal signed multiple pleadings in various cases indicating the notation "MCLE Exemption II & III Rec. No. 000659126 Pasig 8.10.10" despite non-compliance.
The contested pleadings were filed in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479 (RTC Quezon City, Branch 222), Civil Case No. Q09-64850 (RTC Quezon City, Branch 221), Civil Case No. 09-269 (RTC Makati, Branch 59), and in two Court of Appeals docketed matters, plus an Answer in the present administrative case.
The purported exemption indicated by Atty. Caringal corresponded to payments of non-compliance fees and not to any grant of exemption, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 0659126.
Atty. Caringal paid a so-called "exemption fee" on January 7, 2009 in the amount of PhP1,000.00 for MCLE I (which was actually a non-compliance fee) and paid non-compliance fees totaling PhP2,000.00 for MCLE II and III on August 10, 2010.
Atty. Caringal belatedly completed the MCLE requirements for MCLE II and III by March 11, 2011.

Issues Presented

Whether Atty. Caringal committed professional misconduct by failing to complete MCLE II and MCLE III within the compliance periods and by representing in pleadings that he was exempt.
Whether the misstatement that he was "MCLE-exempt" in multiple pleadings constitutes a breach of the Lawyer's Oath and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What disciplinary sanction, if any, is appropriate given the facts including belated compliance and the number of pleadings containing false MCLE information.

Contentions of the Parties

Marilu C. Turla contended that Atty. Caringal failed to take required MCLE seminars for MCLE II and III, falsely represented exemption, violated his oath not to do falsehoods, and should be disciplined despite subsequent compliance.
Atty. Caringal asserted that the Complaint constituted harassment related to pending litigation, claimed to have completed MCLE units for MCLE II in March–April 2008 but alleged administrative misapplication of credits to MCLE I, and maintained that he paid applicable fees and later complied with MCLE requirements.
Atty. Caringal further argued that he had been penalized by payment of the non-compliance fee and that no Non-Compliance Notice triggering listing as a delinquent member was shown to have been received.

Investigating Commissioner Findings

The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Caringal failed to complete the MCLE requirements for the MCLE II and III compliance periods.
The Investigating Commissioner concluded that Official Receipt No. 0659126 evidenced payment of the non-compliance fee pursuant to Rule 13, Section 1 of Bar Matter No. 850 and that payment constitu