Manila: The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred a lawyer for using a false Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number in court pleadings he filed.
According to Philippines News Agency, in a per curiam decision released on Thursday, the SC en banc disbarred Jose R. Hidalgo for dishonest conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). The lawyer represented the defendant in a malicious prosecution case pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 153 in Bi±an City. In the answer he filed for his client, the lawyer included his MCLE compliance number, which is required for lawyers.
The opposing party's lawyer then claimed that Hidalgo did not actually comply with the MCLE requirements and attached a Certification from the MCLE Office stating that Hidalgo had not complied from the first compliance period up to the present. The RTC granted the motion and required Hidalgo to explain why he should not be cited in contempt for citing a false MCLE number in his pleading.
The court furnished the MCLE Office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) with a copy of its Order for possible administrative proceedings against Hidalgo. After investigation, the IBP found that Hidalgo knowingly used a false MCLE compliance number, making him guilty of serious dishonesty, fraud, deceit, including making untruthful statements, and recommended his disbarment. The SC adopted the IBP's findings.
The SC approved Bar Matter No. 850, requiring members of the bar to complete 36 hours of legal education every three years to keep them updated on the law and to uplift legal practice standards. The SC also issued Bar Matter No. 1922, as amended, requiring lawyers to include the number and date of their MCLE certificate of compliance or exemption on all pleadings filed before courts or quasi-judicial bodies.
'The act of indicating patently false information in pleadings filed before the courts constitutes bad faith and dishonesty, and shows blatant disrespect of the courts and its rules. Worse, it prejudiced the clients, whose cause was adversely affected when the RTC granted the expunction of the answer with counterclaim and motion to dismiss from the records,' the SC said. Such misconduct is a serious offense under the CPRA and given the gravity of his offense, and the fact that Hidalgo was previously suspended for one year in another administrative case, the SC disbarred him effective immediately.
The SC also fined Hidalgo PHP35,000 for willful disobedience, a less serious offense, for ignoring the IBP's order to submit an answer and a verified position paper.
