Mapalad, Sr. vs. Echanez

An attorney who repeatedly uses a falsified MCLE compliance number in pleadings, willfully disobeys lawful orders of the courts and the IBP, and has been previously sanctioned twice for similar misconduct, shall be disbarred for gross misconduct, dishonesty, and deceit constituting violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr. and respondent Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez were opposing parties in Civil Case No. 1635-1-784, an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the Municipal Trial Court in Santiago City, Isabela, where complainant was one of the plaintiffs and respondent served as counsel for the defendants. The dispute arose in the context of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program established under Bar Matter No. 850, which requires all members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to complete continuing legal education requirements within designated compliance periods.

Complainant Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr. and respondent Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez were opposing parties in Civil Case No. 1635-1-784, an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the Municipal Trial Court in Santiago City, Isabela, where complainant was one of the plaintiffs and respondent was counsel for the defendants. The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. Respondent thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 22, 2009, in which he indicated his MCLE Compliance No. II-0014038 without indicating the date of issue thereof. On appeal, respondent filed the appellants' brief, again only indicating his MCLE Compliance Number without the date of issue.

Respondent likewise filed a Petition for Injunction docketed as Special Civil Action No. 3573 for the same clients, once again indicating only his MCLE Compliance Number. He also filed a Motion for Leave of Court dated July 13, 2009 in the said special civil action, indicating his MCLE Compliance Number without the date of issue. Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent had no MCLE compliance yet. The MCLE Office issued a Certification dated September 30, 2009, stating that respondent had not yet complied with his MCLE requirements for the First Compliance Period (April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004) and Second Compliance Period (April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007).

Complainant filed a verified Complaint for Disbarment dated October 16, 2009 before the IBP, arguing that respondent's act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties, and counsels into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements when in truth he had not, constituted serious malpractice and grave misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a resolution dated February 10, 2010 requiring respondent to file a comment within 10 days from notice, but respondent failed to comply. The Court then issued another resolution dated July 11, 2011 requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt and again to file a comment, but respondent again failed to comply. The IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing on August 14, 2013, but neither party appeared despite due notice. The IBP directed the parties to submit their respective position papers, but only complainant filed his.

The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD rendered a report dated December 17, 2013 recommending respondent's disbarment. On September 28, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-685 adopting and approving the said recommendation, citing respondent's violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1 Rule 1.01 and Canon 10 Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for falsifying his MCLE Compliance Number and using it in pleadings, his having ignored the orders and notices of the Commission on Bar Discipline, and his having been previously sanctioned twice by the IBP. No motion for reconsideration was filed by either party. It was further noted that respondent had been previously found guilty by the Court en banc in a decision dated April 11, 2013 for engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission, for which he was suspended for two years, and again in a decision dated May 31, 2016 for the same offense, for which he was suspended for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public. In both prior cases, respondent had likewise failed to file answers, comments, or position papers, or attend mandatory conferences despite due notices.

• Serious Malpractice and Grave Misconduct: Complainant argued that respondent's act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties, and counsels concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements when in truth he had not, constitutes serious malpractice and grave misconduct warranting disbarment.

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

• Administrative Discipline: Yes. Respondent was disbarred for repeatedly using a falsified MCLE compliance number in pleadings, willfully disobeying lawful orders of the courts and the IBP, and having been previously sanctioned twice for similar misconduct, all in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Administrative Discipline: The Court found respondent's culpability established on three grounds. First, respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850, as certified by the MCLE Office, which confirmed that he had not complied with the first and second MCLE compliance periods. Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts on at least four occasions. In doing so, he acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit, misleading the courts, litigants including his own clients, professional colleagues, and all others who may have relied on such pleadings. This constituted a mockery of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, which authored the MCLE rules. The Court applied the Lawyer's Oath under Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which requires commitment to obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both court and client. Respondent likewise violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (prohibiting falsehood and misleading the court by any artifice). His use of a false MCLE compliance number also put his own clients at risk, as pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect, thereby violating Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR regarding fidelity and competence in serving clients. Second, respondent repeatedly failed to obey legal orders of the trial court, the IBP-CBD, and the Supreme Court despite due notice. The trial court directed him to file a comment on a motion raising the issue of his false MCLE compliance number but he did not comply. The Supreme Court likewise directed him to file a comment on the complaint, then issued a show cause order, both of which he ignored. The IBP-CBD's notice for mandatory conference was also disregarded. Such dismissive conduct exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court. Third, respondent had already been sanctioned twice by the Court en banc in separate cases — first on April 11, 2013 (suspended for two years for unauthorized notarial practice) and again on May 31, 2016 (suspended for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public). In both prior cases, respondent had similarly failed to file answers, comments, or position papers, or attend mandatory conferences despite due notices. Taken altogether, these acts warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes disbarment for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, or willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.

• Disbarment as the Ultimate Penalty — Disbarment is warranted where an attorney's misconduct demonstrates a pattern of bad faith, dishonesty, and willful disobedience of lawful orders, especially where prior sanctions have failed to deter similar conduct. The Court applied this principle by affirming the IBP's recommendation for disbarment, considering respondent's falsification of his MCLE compliance number, his repeated disregard of court and IBP orders, and his two prior suspensions for unauthorized notarial practice.

• Duty of Candor and Fidelity to the Court — Under Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. The Court found respondent violated this duty by repeatedly indicating a false MCLE compliance number in pleadings, thereby misleading the courts, litigants, and professional colleagues.

• Obligation to Obey Lawful Orders — Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government, which is absolutely essential if the government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Respondent's repeated failure to obey orders from the trial court, the IBP-CBD, and the Supreme Court constituted willful disobedience under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

• Effect of False Information in Pleadings — Pleadings containing false information, such as a falsified MCLE compliance number, produce no legal effect and can be fatal to the client's cause. This principle underscores the lawyer's duty to serve clients with competence and diligence under Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR.

• "In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, not only once but four times, as per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so doing, he indeed misled the courts, litigants - his own clients included - professional colleagues, and all others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false information." — This passage articulates the Court's finding of bad faith and deceit as the basis for disciplinary action, establishing that repeated use of false information in pleadings constitutes gross misconduct.

• "Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government, which is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws and not of men." — This passage defines the rationale underlying the lawyer's duty to obey lawful orders, a duty the respondent repeatedly violated.

• "As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain legal proficiency and a high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Also, of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and ignore the very bonds of society, is unfaithful to his position and office and sets a detrimental example to the society." — This passage articulates the elevated standard of conduct expected of lawyers and the rationale for imposing the severe penalty of disbarment.

• Intestate Estate of Jose Uy vs. Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari III, A.C. No. 10525, September 1, 2015, 768 SCRA 384 — Cited as authority for the proposition that using false information in pleadings constitutes bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit, and that pleadings with false information produce no legal effect, putting the client's cause at risk.

• Hon. Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan vs. Atty. Rodolfo Flores, A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013 — Cited for the principle that court orders should be respected as essential to a government of laws and not of men.

• Efiginia M. Tenoso vs. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, 709 Phil. 1 (2013) — A prior case involving the same respondent, where the Court en banc found him guilty of engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission and suspended him for two years with a warning of more severe sanction for repetition.

• Flora C. Mariano vs. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016 — Another prior case involving the same respondent, where the Court en banc again found him guilty of performing notarial acts without a notarial commission, suspending him for two years and permanently barring him from being commissioned as notary public.

• Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco vs. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, 687 Phil. 7 (2012) — Cited for the principle that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice and are expected to maintain a high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

• Catherine & Henry Yu vs. Atty. Antoniutti K. Palana, 580 Phil. 19 (2008) — Cited for the principle that lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the laws and that to repudiate and override them is unfaithful to their position and sets a detrimental example to society.

• Rule 138, Section 3, Rules of Court (Lawyer's Oath) — Requires lawyers to maintain allegiance to the Republic, support the Constitution, obey laws and legal orders, do no falsehood, and conduct themselves with fidelity to the courts and clients. The Court found respondent violated this oath by using a false MCLE compliance number and disobeying lawful orders.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Respondent violated this rule by falsifying his MCLE compliance number and using it in pleadings.

• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Respondent violated this rule by misleading the courts through the use of a false MCLE compliance number.

• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Respondent violated this canon by putting his clients at risk through pleadings containing false information.

• Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Respondent violated this canon by filing pleadings with a falsified MCLE compliance number that could be fatal to his clients' causes.

• Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court — Authorizes disbarment or suspension for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, or willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. The Court applied this provision as the statutory basis for the penalty of disbarment.

• Bar Matter No. 850 (Revised Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, October 2, 2001) — Establishes the MCLE requirements for members of the IBP. Respondent violated these rules by failing to comply with the first and second compliance periods and by falsely representing compliance through a fabricated compliance number.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Mariano P. Del Castillo, Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires.